2005 (9) TMI 644 - SC - Indian Laws

Motor Vehicle Claim - Whether the taxation authority under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 was right in taxing the tractor-trailer as a separate and distinct vehicle, different from a tractor and denying exemption sought by the appellant u/s 16 of the said 1957 Act on the ground that the tractor-trailer was a distinct category of goods carriage requiring permit u/s 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words motor vehicle . Although, a trailer is separately defined u/s 2(46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by motor vehicle, it is still included into the definition of the words motor vehicle u/s 2(28). Similarly, the word tractor is defined in section 2(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words motor vehicle have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the legislature. Therefore, we have to read the words motor vehicle in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has been enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions under section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of motor vehicle includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractortrailer would constitute a goods carriage u/s 2(14) and consequently, a transport vehicle u/s 2(47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor-trailer in the present case falls u/s 2(14) as a goods carriage and consequently, it falls under the definition of transport vehicle u/s 2(47) of the M.V. Act, 1988. In the present matter, we were concerned with taxing of tractor-trailer unit and not with the question as to whether such a vehicle would fall under item 3 or 10 of part B of the schedule to the Taxation Act. Hence, we are not required to go into that question. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and consequently, we dismiss this civil appeal with no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Taxation of "tractor-trailer" as a separate and distinct vehicle.
2. Denial of exemption under section 16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957.
3. Requirement of permits under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for tractor-trailer combinations.
4. Validity of the demand notices issued by the taxation authority.
5. Interpretation of "goods carriage" and "transport vehicle" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6. Applicability of reciprocal agreements and national permits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxation of "tractor-trailer" as a separate and distinct vehicle:
The main question was whether the taxation authority under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 was correct in taxing the "tractor-trailer" as a distinct vehicle different from a tractor. The taxation authority issued demand notices to the appellant, claiming that the tractor-trailer was a "goods carriage" requiring a permit under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court upheld the taxation authority's categorization, stating that the use of the vehicle on the given occasion determines its category, whether it is adapted for that purpose or not.

2. Denial of exemption under section 16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957:
The appellant sought exemption under section 16 of the 1957 Act, arguing that their tractors were registered as non-transport vehicles in Maharashtra, and trailers as transport vehicles. The Supreme Court found that the categorization by the taxation authority was based on the use of the motor vehicle on the given occasion, and thus, the appellant was not entitled to the exemption sought.

3. Requirement of permits under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for tractor-trailer combinations:
The appellant contended that they had obtained national permits for their trailers under section 88(12) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, allowing them to ply in Karnataka. However, the Supreme Court held that the tractor-trailer combination required permits under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it constituted a "goods carriage" and consequently, a "transport vehicle."

4. Validity of the demand notices issued by the taxation authority:
The taxation authority issued demand notices to the appellant, requiring payment of tax on the tractor-trailer units. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of these notices, stating that the categorization of the tractor-trailer as a "goods carriage" was correct, and the appellant was liable to pay the tax as demanded.

5. Interpretation of "goods carriage" and "transport vehicle" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
The Supreme Court examined the definitions under section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It concluded that the tractor-trailer combination fell under the definition of "goods carriage" (section 2(14)) and consequently, under "transport vehicle" (section 2(47)). The Court emphasized that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle suitable for use on roads, including trailers.

6. Applicability of reciprocal agreements and national permits:
The appellant argued that reciprocal agreements and national permits should exempt them from the tax. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that taxation is governed by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, and not by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court held that the provisions of the Taxation Act must be construed on their own force, independent of the registration or fitness certificates under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the taxation authority's decision to categorize the tractor-trailer as a "goods carriage" requiring a permit under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and confirmed the validity of the demand notices issued by the taxation authority. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.