LexNATWAR PARIKH AND CO. LID. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
.
.
NATWAR PARIKH AND CO. LID.
- v. I'
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS ..
. /
. SEPTEMBER l, 200S 1.
.·. ('
.
.
...
~ I
.
[S.N._YARIAVA, S.H. KAPADIA AND TARu_N CHATTERJEE, JJ.)
I
!
Karnataka M~tor Vehicles Taxation Act; 1957-Sections 3 (2) and 16
Sche_d~le-ltem /o, Pari ~Motor' Vehicles A~t,_ 198~ections 2 (14), 2
.
(44), 2 (46}, 2 (47), 41, 46; 66 and 88 (12)-Exemptionfrom tax payable by
C. tramport vehicle-Appellants used_ specially designed. tractors-trailers to
transpo;t goods-Tractor~ were registered as non-tra~port vehicles and
trailers registered as transpo~t vehicles-Taxation authorities assessed the
tractor-t;ailers as transport vehicles and issued demand notices as per their
,
weight~Dep~ty Commissioner upheld dem~nd notices in apJX!~i-Writ petition
D filed, dismissed by Single Judge-Division Bench dismissed writ appeal-On
appeal-Held, use of a mot~r vehicle o~ the given occasion determines its
category, whether it is adopted for that purpose or not Categorization, of
tractor-:-trailer rightly made based on the use of it on the given Occasio~
Taxation Act to be read on its own force andnot with reference to the Motor
J-'ehicle Act-Tractor-trailer being a "goods carriage" consequently falls
E under the definition of "transport vehicle"-Constitution of india-List /J,
Entry 57.
F
G
The appellants being engaged in transportation of heavy equipment
made use·or tractors to push or pull trailers behind them, which entered
the State of Karnataka. The tractorswere registered as non-transport _
vehicles and trailers were registered as tr~~sport vehicles. The taxation
authority issued four demand notices for payme~t, RS. 5.69 lacs as tax
under Section 3 (2) read with item 10 of Part B of the, schedule to the
Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 on the ground that they
were transport vehicles, requiring permits under Section 66 of the Motor
.
. -
-·
-
Vehicle Act, 1988, liable to pay tax as per weight appeal to the Deputy
Commissioner of Transport was dismissed. The appellant filed a writ
_ petitio-n in the High Court. The question for determination was whether
..
the taxation authority was right in taxing the "tractor-trailer" as a separate
· and distinct vehicle, different from a tractor and denying exemption
H sought under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1957 on the ground
1100
NATWARPARIKH & CO. LTD. v. STATE
1101
that tractor-trailer was a distinct c~tegory of "iood's carri~ge". requiring A
permit under Section.66 of the M. V. AcL Single Judge dismissed the writ
petitio'n. Division Bene~ d-ism~ssed the writ .appeal filed by the appel~ants~
Hence, this a,pp:eal~ .
. __ , _ l ,
. ~<
.
.
. -
.,
.
.. .. ·
· Appellant contended tha_t its tractors were registered in Maharashtra · B
as "nOn-tr~nsport _vehicles" whereas .the trailers were register~d in
Maharashtra as "transport-vehicles"; that the trailers were given national . . ·
permits under Section 88 (12)' of theM.~. Act, which enabled them to ply
as "transport vehicles" in the State of Karnataka; that tbe word "tractor"
was defined in Section 2 (44) of the .M. V. Act, whereas the word "trailer"
was defined in Section 2 ( 46) oft heM. V. Act; that a certificate of registration. C
issued under Section 46 of the M.V. Act was effective throughout India .
and ifthedemand for tax was upheld, it would undermine the guarantee .. ··
given under Section 46 of the M.V. Act to the 'effect that registration of
a vehicle in one State shall be effective and in force throughout India; that
a tractor was used to pull a trailer or several trailers together on one D
occasion and it can also be used to pull another set on combinati_on of
trailers on other occasion and, therefore, the tractor-trailer combination
was not a fixed or a permanent combination; that the tax authorities
· sought to tax the tractor-trailer combination under Item 10 of Part-B of
the schedule to the Taxation Act, which imposed a tax on motor vehicles
used far haulage and did not tax a tractor-trailer combination; that Jtem E
10 of Part B did not tax a combination of tractor-trailer per se but only
taxed a tractor alone which is in the non-transport category and that if
a tractor was a transport vehicle, it would be taxable under Item 3 of Part
B of the Schedule to the Taxation Act; that Section 3 of the Taxation Act
was the charging section which levied tax on all motor vehicles suitable F
for use o~ the roadExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.