Case Law Details
Steel Authority of India Limited Vs State Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court)
Heavy Earth Moving Vehicles was required to be registered u/s 2(28)of MV Act and same could only be driven by licensed individuals
Conclusion: The issue of vehicle including Haulpak Dumpers, Water Sprinklers, Excavators, Dozers, Drillers, etc., were substantial in size and incapable of plying on roads was taxable or not depends upon the test as to whether the vehicle was proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. Hence, it was not in dispute that such vehicle could also be used for the aforesaid purpose. Further, the vehicle in question was required to be registered under the provisions of Section 2 (28) of the Act, 1988.
Held: Assessee-company had its coal mines at Chasnalla Area of Dhanbad district from where coal for its steel plant was mined. For the purpose of mining coal, assessee purchased heavy earth-moving equipment and exclusively uses them within the leasehold area. These vehicles, including Haulpak Dumpers, Water Sprinklers, Excavators, Dozers, Drillers, etc., were substantial in size and incapable of plying on roads. Manufacturers categorized them as “off-road vehicles” for excise duty and other taxes. Assessee did not apply for the registration of these vehicles under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and rules made thereunder, as the said vehicles did not fall within the definition of “motor vehicle” or construction equipment vehicle. Notably, on 28.08.2014, assessee received a letter directing them to register their heavy earth-moving equipment under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Subsequently, on 07.09.2014, another letter was issued, reinforcing the directive to register the heavy earth-moving vehicles in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Aggrieved by the above letters issued by the respondents, assessee filed a writ petition before the High Court, however, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, and held that dumpers, payloaders, shovels, drill masters, bulldozers, etc., had been deemed to fall under the definition of “motor vehicles” under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This dismissal formed the subject matter of the intra-court appeal. It was held that since the issue of vehicle was taxable or not it depends upon the test as to whether the vehicle was proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. Hence, it was not in dispute that such vehicle could also be used for the aforesaid purpose. Further the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in L.P.A. No. 574 of 2019 had also passed order regarding the vehicle in question was required to be registered under the provisions of Section 2 (28) of the Act, 1988. This Court after having discussed the factual aspect and legal position and coming back to the order passed by learned Single Judge was of the view that the Single Judge had considered the fact in entirety based upon the legal position. Further the issue of decision of advisory board had also been taken note of by Single Judge but the learned Single Judge refrain himself from delving into the legality and propriety of the said decision taken by the advisory board. In this context, it was opined that the advisory note could not prevail upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in view of provision of Article 141 of the Constitution of India read with Article 144 thereof, whereby and where under if any judgment had been passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court it had got binding effect and over and above any advisory was being issued the same would not prevail upon the law laid down under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
