THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, JAGANNATH AREA AND ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 570 · Decided: 20-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, JAGANNATH 
AREA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSAAND ORS. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 : 
C 
Motor Vehicle--Lery of tax on-Dumper fitted with heary duty tyres 
D 
and used within mining areas-Such dumpers exceeded pennissible dimen-
sions prescribed by Motor Vehicle Rules-Consequently, there was an embar-
go for the dumpers to be used on public roads-Held : dumpers in question 
were motor vehicles-Hence, were taxable within the ambit of the 
Act-Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989-Rr. 92 and 93. 
Motor Vehicle--Lery of tax on-Dumpers fitted with heary duty tyres 
and capable of being used on public roads-But actually used within mining 
areas and not on public roads-Held: lery of tax on such dumpers was not 
inconsistent with compensatory nature of tax. 
E 
Motor Vehicle--Lery of tax on-Held : compensatory in nature. 
F 
Motor Vehicle--Lery of tax on-Validity of-Held : not violative of 
Article 301-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 301. 
The Dumpers belonging to the petitioners which were used within the 
mining areas were taxed as Motor Vehicles under The Orissa Motor 
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was 
dismissed by the High Court. Being aggrieved the Petitioners preferred the · 
present Special Leave Petition. 
G 
On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that the said dumpers 
ran on tyres of higher load-carrying capacity and were not capable of being 
" 
used in public roads; that the manufacturers of the dumpers had given a 
certUicate that the dumpers were not meant for plying on highways because 
(i) Culverts and bridges on highways were generally not designed to take 
care of such axis loads continuously; (ii) The vehicles cannot run at 
H reasonable speed on highway and hence obstruct the flow of normal traffic; 
570 
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER v. STAIB 
571 
(iii) Width and height of the equipment would adversely affect the traffic A 
and minimum preferable width of the road required for plying these 
vehicles was 50 ft; (iv) The vehicles were fitted with specially designed heavy 
duty tyres and the heat generation was much more and generally could not 
be run for more than about 5 kms. at one stretch; that since the dimensions 
of the dumpers exceeded the permissible dimensions under the Act there 
was an embargo for the dumpers to be used on public roads and as such 
the dumpers could not be held as Motor vehicles and could not be taxed 
under the act; and that the tax on dumpers being compensatory in nature 
the same could not be levied on vehicles which did not use the roads. 
Dismissing.the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. On the facts of this case it cannot be held that the vehicles 
in question were not adapted or suitable or capable of being used on public 
roads, even though for most of the time it might actually be used within the 
mining areas on the roads prepared by the mine owners. Therefore, it has 
B 
c 
to be held that the dumpers in question are motor vehicles and are taxable D 
within the ambit of Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. (581-F-G] 
Central Coal Fields Ltd. v.,State of Orissa, (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 133 
and Union of India v. Cltowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 
14, relied on. 
Boiani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, [1974) 2 SCC 777, referred to 
2.1. The tax imposed on the motor vehicles is basically a tax for the 
·use of the roads within the State. It is no doubt a compensatory tax which 
facilitates trade, commerce and intercouse within the State by providing 
roads and maintaining roads in a good state of repair. (582-C] 
Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1963) 1 SCR 
49, relied on. 
E 
F 
2.2. If a statute fixes a charge for a convenience or service provided G 
by the State or an agency of the State, and imposes it upon those who 
choose to avail themselves of the service or convenience, or who can use 
the services provided for, the imposition assumes the character of 
remuneration or consideration charged in respect of an advantage sought 
or received or advantage which can be received •. The mere fact that any 
particular individual though can take advantage of the convenience of the H 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
services provided by the State but for some reason or the otlier chooses 
not to enjoy the services provided cannot escape the taxing liability on that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.