Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (2) TMI 430 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "Hydraulic Excavator" under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
2. Definition and interpretation of "motor vehicle" and "machinery" under relevant statutes.
3. Applicability of specific versus general statutory provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of "Hydraulic Excavator" under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008:
The primary issue in this case is whether the "Hydraulic Excavator" should be classified under Entry 2 as "machinery" or under Entry 13 as "motor vehicles of all kinds" in the Schedule attached to the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007. The Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax Division-3, Jhansi, initially classified it as "machinery," imposing a 2% entry tax. This decision was overturned by the Joint Commissioner of Appeal, who classified it as a "motor vehicle." The U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal upheld this classification, leading to the Revenue's revision petition.

2. Definition and interpretation of "motor vehicle" and "machinery" under relevant statutes:
The term "motor vehicle" is not defined in the Act, 2007. The court referred to the definition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which includes any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads. The court highlighted that the definition of a term in one statute should not be mechanically applied to another unless relevant. The court examined various definitions and interpretations of "machinery" and "motor vehicle" from legal precedents and dictionaries. It concluded that "Hydraulic Excavator" fits the broader definition of "machinery" but also satisfies the characteristics of a "motor vehicle" as it is used for carrying goods like stone boulders and for excavation.

3. Applicability of specific versus general statutory provisions:
The court applied the principle of Generalia Specialibus non Derogant, which means that specific provisions override general ones. The court held that while "machinery" is a general term, "motor vehicles of all kinds" is a specific entry in the Schedule. Therefore, even though a "Hydraulic Excavator" is a type of machinery, it should be classified under the specific entry of "motor vehicles" due to its characteristics and the legislative intent to cover all kinds of motor vehicles in Entry 13, excluding only tractors.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the "Hydraulic Excavator" falls under Entry 13 of the Schedule as "motor vehicles of all kinds" and not under Entry 2 as "machinery." The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the revision petition by the Revenue was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. The judgment emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in light of specific entries and legislative intent, ensuring that specific classifications take precedence over general ones.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates