9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the detention of a scrap mobile crane by respondent no. 3 and the demand for tax payment, the classification of the scrap mobile crane as a vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988, and the legality of the actions taken by the authorities. Detention of Scrap Mobile Crane and Tax Payment: The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing, purchased a Scrap Road Mobile Crane which was later intercepted, seized, and detained by an Inspector of Motor Vehicles. Subsequently, demands were made for payment of various amounts towards tax, penalty, interest, and composition fees. Respondent no. 3 issued a show-cause notice demanding a significant sum from the petitioner. Respondent no. 4 applied for registration of the crane and was informed no fees were required due to being a Central Government Body. The petitioner, aggrieved by the actions, approached the Court seeking relief. Classification of Scrap Mobile Crane: The petitioner argued that the Scrap Road Mobile Crane does not fall under the definition of a motor vehicle as per Section 2(28) of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act defines a motor vehicle as one adopted for use on roads by its own mechanical power. The crane, incapable of self-propulsion on roads and only movable by towing, does not meet the criteria for a motor vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner purchased it as scrap, not as a vehicle subject to registration or taxation. The petitioner acquired the crane from a government undertaking, further supporting the exemption from tax payment. Judgment: After considering the facts and the relevant legal provisions, the Court found that the Scrap Road Mobile Crane does not qualify as a motor vehicle under the Act. As it cannot be used on roads under its own power and is intended for towing, it is not subject to registration or taxation as a vehicle. The Court held that the actions of respondent no. 3 in detaining the crane were illegal and contrary to law. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
|
