JUDGEMENT
BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. -
(1.)These Original Petitions challenge the competence of the authorities under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act to tax the vehicles owned by the petitioners and operated exclusively within the area of the Cochin Port Trust. These vehicles are essentially trailer chassises having four wheels to the rear and no wheels in front and intended to be loaded with containers disembarked from ships to be conveyed to the godowns located in the wharf itself. The period relevant for these Original Petitions is the period prior to 1987. In the year 1987 these vehicles were registered under the Motor Vehicles Act and became exigible to tax subject of course to seeking exemption under Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. In these Original Petitions we are not concerned with the period subsequent to the registration of these vehicles in the year 1987.
(2.)According to the petitioners these are imported trailer chassises intended only for mounting the unloaded containers on to them and to be pulled away to the godowns within the warf in Cochin Port Trust. They were not intended to be used on the roads outside the Port Trust area. They were not motor vehicles as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Since they were not using the roads of the State, they were not liable to tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. A vehicle could be taxed under that Act only if the vehicle used a road in the State and is a motor vehicle as defined in the Act. It is also submitted that even if the vehicle is registered as a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, still, the liability to tax does not automically arises since the registration is one thing and the liability to tax under the Taxation Act, is another.
(3.)In the case of one of the petitioners, the question had come up before this Court on an earlier occasion. This Court referred to the relevant aspects that would arise for decision before the authorities under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Taxation Act and remitted the proceeding for a fresh decision on the question of liability to tax. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to refer to that decision of this Court reported as United States Lines Agency v. State of Kerala, (1988) 1 Ker LT 259. It will be useful to set down the Head notes of that decision at this stage. "When the definition of motor vehicle under S.2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates that the vehicle should be adapted for use upon roads, the meaning that should be assigned to the words 'adapted for use upon roads' is suitable for use on roads. When it is suitable for use on roads, it means, "suitable for use on roads in the normal circumstances and not on special or abnormal situation". To escape from the net of the definition of motor vehicle under the second part of the definition, the vehicle should be of a special type, adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. The emphasis is that the vehicle itself should be adapted for use only in an enclosed premises. The use of the vehicle in an enclosed premises alone will not be sufficient, but it has to be examined whether the vehicle itself is adapted for using it only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. The question, what is and enclosed premises has to be decided on the basis of the peculiar features of the place where the vehicles are used. The authorities under the Act have to decide primarily the question whether the vehicles in question will come under the definition of S.2(18) of the M.V. Act and in that process the authorities have to consider whether the vehicles adapted for use upon roads should be understood as suitable for use on roads. The test that can be applied is whether a reasonable person looking at the vehicle would say that it is suitable for normal use on the roads. The definition of the word 'motor vehicle' has to be understood to refer only to vehicles which are reasonably suitable for the road in the sense that an average man could think that the plying of the vehicles on the road would be one of the normal uses of the vehicle. That 'seems to be the test of suitability. Definitely, it cannot be read to mean 'actually used on the roads'. If it could be used as a vehicle that could be put on the roads in the normal course it is a motor vehicle. That it is not so used on the roads but is used only in certain factory premises makes no difference as it nevertheless has the potential to be used as a vehicle on the road. Further the authorities have to consider whether the vehicles in question are specially adapted for use in an enclosed premises. In this context, it is also necessary to consider whether the premises in question is an enclosed premises. Certainly, it is also necessary to find out whether the vehicles are used on public roads or not. The fact that the vehicles are all registered under the M.V. Act is of no moment for the purpose of levy of tax, if the relevant aspects do not suggest that the vehicles in question are not motor vehicles liable to be taxed.No tax can be imposed on a subject by an Act of the legislature without words which are clear and plain, showing an intention to lay the burden on him who has been asked to pay the tax. The simple stint of the Court, the limited job of the Court, is to construe the provisions of the taxing enactment according to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used arid then to apply that meaning to the facts of the ease. If when this process is put in action, the tax payer is brought fairly within the Act; no escape for him, otherwise he goes free.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.