9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent No.1 that as the chassis was consumed by mounting a bus body on it and resulting “bus” being a different product, respondent No.1 was not entitled to pay any taxes. As decided in Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd. etc. .v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. (1971 (11) TMI 145 - SUPREME COURT) merely because bodies were going to be attached by the ultimate purchasers, it cannot be said that the running of the chassis on the roads of Andhra Pradesh would attract exemption. The Apex Court also turned down the submission of seeking exemption on the ground that the chassis would be meaningless unless body is attached to it. Taking into consideration the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, dealing with the word “use” as referred to its meaning in Oxford Dictionary as well as in Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, the argument advanced by respondent No.1 in support of his submission that as the chassis was consumed in mounting of the bus body on it and as such this different product is not entitled for any tax, is unacceptable. Conjoint reading of section 2(1)(i) and section 3(1) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the “purchase value of motor vehicle” me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai and the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity) decided the Second Appeal on 07.11.2005 and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for passing assessment order afresh. The Tribunal, in its order of remand, quashed the orders of the lower authorities namely Assessment Officer and the first appellate Authority. The Assessment Officer, on 15.02.2007, on considering the matter afresh, passed the order of assessment on the purchase value of chassis only. This order was challenged by respondent No.1 in appeal before Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax (Appeal), Nagpur. The first appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 vide order dated 30.05.2005 and being dissatisfied with the order passed by the appellate authority, respondent No.1 carried appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 11.01.2011 allowed the appeal and thereby the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 30.05.2005 and the order passed by the Assessment Officer i.e. Entry Trax Officer, Nagpur dated 15.02.2007 are set aside. The Tribunal further directed that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998 STC 330) . 7. In view of these rival submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, we have considered the controversy involved in the present petition. It is not in dispute that the chassis was purchased by respondent No.1 in the State of Madhya Pradesh at Raipur on 10.07.1995 and the same was brought in the State of Maharashtra effecting its entry. It is also not in dispute that bus body was mounted on the said chassis which was entered into the State of Maharashtra and the vehicle was registered with the registration authorities of State of Maharashtra bearing registration No. MH31M5270. The relevant provision to be considered in this matter is Section 3 of the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. The same reads thus : 3. Incidence of Tax (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder, there shall be levied and collected a tax on the purchase value of a motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use, consumption or, as the case may be, sale therein and which is liable for registration (or for which an assignment of a new registration mark is required to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly lost sight of the fact that the term motor vehicle refers to and defines in the Act namely the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987 as well as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines motor vehicle inclusive of the term chassis . For better appreciation, we may quote the definition of motor vehicles in both these Acts. The motor vehicle as defined in the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act, 1987 reads thus : motor vehicle means a motor vehicle as defined in clause (2) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and includes motor cars, motor taxi cabs, motor cycles, motor cycle combinations, motor scooters, moterettee, motor omnibuses, motor vans, motor lorries and chassis of motor vehicles and bodies or tankers built or meant for mounting on chassis of motor vehicles. (emphasis supplied). The motor vehicle as defined under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under Section 2(28) reads thus : motor vehicle or vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use but even without a body a chassis can be used and is actually used when it is taken over public roads. We may add here the meaning of word use referred to in a Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary which is as, to employ for the accomplishment of a purpose; make use of . 10. Taking into consideration the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, dealing with the word use as referred to its meaning in Oxford Dictionary as well as the meaning of word use referred to in Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, in our opinion, the argument advanced by Shri A.J. Pathak, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 in support of his submission that as the chassis was consumed in mounting of the bus body on it and as such this different product is not entitled for any tax, is unacceptable. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 places reliance on a Trade Circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on 05th October, 2001. The Trade Circular by referring to certain representations received by the government, reads thus: Several representations have been received by the Government pointing out that when chassis of buses and trucks are purchased locally but where the bodies have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 05.10.2001 refers to the motor vehicle and the definition refers to it in the Circular is inclusive of chassis of motor vehicle and further that purchase value of a motor vehicle means not of the value of only the chassis but of the entire composite vehicle i.e. chassis having a body built thereon entering the State of Maharashtra. In our opinion, the Circular in no way leads to the conclusion as it is tried to be drawn by Shri A.J. Pathak, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 in support of his submission. Apart from this, by no stretch of imagination, any Trade Circular issued by an authority in response to representation of either person or the body of person or the representative organizations can substitute the statutory provisions of the law. We are also unable to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 on the basis of the judgments in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai .v. Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (reported in 2004 STC 152) and in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited .v. State of Maharashtra (reported in 1995 (98) STC 330) . We are also unable to acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
