2016 (5) TMI 517 - SC - Indian Laws

Classification - Whether the excavators of the description available is a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 so as to make the same liable for registration and payment of taxes under the Act - Held that - by referring the decision of two judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka and others 2005 (9) TMI 644 - SUPREME COURT , the excavators belonging to the appellant fall within the meaning of the definition of motor vehicles contained in Section 2(28) of the Act and would, therefore, be liable for registration, payment of taxes, etc. as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether excavators belonging to a company are considered 'motor vehicles' under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, requiring registration and tax payment.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether excavators owned by a company fall under the definition of 'motor vehicles' as per Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A conflict of views was identified between previous judgments, leading to a larger Bench considering the matter. The Court examined the relevant statutes and past decisions, including Goodyear India Ltd. v. Union of India and others (1997) 5 SCC 752, Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others (2005) 7 SCC 364, and Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Santosh and others (2013) 6 SCC 94. The Goodyear case focused on the classification of tyres for duty payment, while the latter two cases directly addressed the interpretation of 'motor vehicles' under the Act.

In its analysis, the Court distinguished the context of the Goodyear case, which dealt with central excise duty classification, from the direct interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act in the present matter. The Court found that the conclusions in Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. and Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation cases align with the Act's definition of 'motor vehicles' under Section 2(28). Consequently, the Court held that the excavators in question met the Act's definition of 'motor vehicles' and thus were subject to registration and tax obligations as outlined in the Act.

As a result of the above analysis, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the High Court.