2003 (4) TMI 574 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether dumpers used within enclosed factory premises fall within the exempted category and are considered 'motor vehicles' under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951.
2. Whether the dumpers are liable to pay tax under sections 4 and 4-B of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951.
3. The applicability of the Supreme Court's decisions in similar cases.
4. The validity of the demand notices issued by the Department.
5. The constitutional validity of sections 4 and 4-B of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951.
6. The relevance of the alternate remedy of revision under the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition and Taxability of Dumpers as 'Motor Vehicles':

The primary issue is whether dumpers used exclusively within factory premises are 'motor vehicles' and thus subject to tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. The petitioners contended that dumpers are earth-moving equipment not adapted for road use and hence outside the Act's ambit. However, the Department argued that dumpers are adaptable for road use and thus taxable.

The judgment referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including *Central Coal Fields Ltd. v. State of Orissa*, *Union of India v. Chowgule & Co. (P.) Ltd.*, and *Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area v. State of Orissa*, which held that dumpers running on rubber tyres are adapted and suitable for road use, irrespective of their actual use within enclosed premises. Thus, dumpers are 'motor vehicles' and liable to tax.

2. Liability to Pay Tax Under Sections 4 and 4-B:

Sections 4 and 4-B of the Act impose a tax on all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the state. The court concluded that dumpers, being suitable for road use, fall under this provision and are taxable. The decision emphasized that the adaptability for road use, not the actual use, determines tax liability.

3. Applicability of Supreme Court Decisions:

The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's interpretation in previous cases, which clarified that vehicles suitable for road use, even if used within enclosed premises, are subject to tax. The court dismissed the petitioners' attempts to distinguish these cases, affirming that the legal principles established by the Supreme Court apply universally.

4. Validity of Demand Notices:

The court examined the procedural aspects of the demand notices issued by the Department. It noted that the petitioners were given opportunities to object and present evidence. The appellate authority's findings that the dumpers are motor vehicles and taxable were upheld.

5. Constitutional Validity of Sections 4 and 4-B:

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of sections 4 and 4-B. However, the court noted that these provisions had been previously upheld by the Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court. The court reaffirmed their validity, citing *Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan* and *Inder Kumar Goyal v. State of Rajasthan*.

6. Relevance of Alternate Remedy of Revision:

The court addressed the issue of whether the petitioners should have pursued the alternate remedy of revision under the Act before approaching the High Court. Given the consistent stance of the revisional authority favoring the Department, the court deemed it appropriate to decide the matter on its merits rather than relegating the petitioners to the alternate remedy.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed all special appeals and writ petitions, affirming that dumpers, being adaptable for road use, are 'motor vehicles' under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, and thus liable to tax under sections 4 and 4-B. The constitutional validity of these sections was upheld, and the procedural validity of the demand notices was confirmed. The court also decided not to enforce the alternate remedy of revision, given the circumstances.