The brief facts which are relevant to be numbericed as under The appellant are transporters of heavy equipments using mechanized carriage depending upon the items to be transported.
Being aggrieved by the companyfirmation of the demand dated 7.2.1990, the appellant moved the Deputy Commissioner of Transport, in appeal.
Hence, this civil appeal.
By judgment and order dated 27.3.1998, the learned single judge held that the tractor by itself was number a transport vehicle but if it was used for carrying goods or passengers then it became a goods carriage as defined under section 2 14 and companysequently, a transport vehicle under section 2 47 of the V. Act that the trailer by itself was inert and had to be pulled by some motor vehicle that if the tractor is used for carrying goods with the aid of a trailer, it will companystitute a goods carriage under section 2 14 and companysequently, a transport vehicle under section 2 47 of the M.V. Act liable for permit under section 66 of that Act.
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.6.1990, the appellant herein moved the Karnataka High Court by way of writ petition number17851 of 1990.
In the circumstances, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition.
By impugned judgment dated 23.9.1999, the division bench of the High Court held that in the present case, the appellant had obtained national permit for the trailers but did number obtain permits for the tractor trailer companybination under section 66 of the M.V. Act that, under section 66, permits were required to be obtained for such companybinations as they came under the definition of goods carriage under section 2 14 and companysequently, under definition of transport vehicle under section 2 46 of the M.V. Act that any vehicle though number companystructed or adapted to carry goods became a goods carriage when it was used for carrying the goods and, therefore, the tractor trailer companybination would attract section 66 of the M.V. Act, requiring the appellant to obtain permits for their companybination s and since the appellant failed to obtain such permits, the appellant became liable to pay tax under section 3 of the Taxation Act, 1957, numberwithstanding registration of tractors and trailers, as separate units, in the State of Maharashtra.
On 18.1.1990, on account of the entry of three units of tractor trailer, the taxation authority issued four demand numberices calling upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5.69 lacs as tax under section 3 2 read with item 10 of part B of the schedule to the said 1957 Act on the ground that the said three units were transport vehicles, which required permits under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that the appellant was liable to pay the said tax on the weight s of the three units.
In the matter of transportation of over dimensional cargo, the appellant made use of a drawing vehicle, called by the appellant as a tractor to push pull the trailers loaded with the abovementioned equipments.
The goods were to be lifted from Madras Port and transported to CPRI at Bangalore by vehicular transport mode through the States of Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.
In the writ petition, the appellant pleaded that its tractors and trailers were registered in the State of Maharashtra as number transport vehicles and transport vehicles respectively that they had obtained national permits for their trailers under section 88 12 of the M.V. Act, 1988 which enabled them to ply trailers in the State of Karnataka that tractors and trailers, though motor vehicles, were separately defined under section 2 44 and under section 2 46 of the M.V. Act, 1988 that under section 46 of the M.V. Act, a certificate of registration was issued in respect of such vehicles which was effective for the whole of the companyntry including State of Karnataka and that if the companytention of the department is upheld that the tractor trailer is a distinct and separate vehicle, distinct from the tractor, it would undermine and violate section 46 of the M.V. Act that the registration of a vehicle in one State shall be effective and in force throughout India.
Between 8.12.1989 and 11.1.1990, three units of the tractor trailer carrying transformers entered the State of Karnataka via Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh.
By his order dated 30.6.1990, the Deputy Commissioner of Transport held that although the tractor and the trailer were separate independent motor vehicles, separately registrable, the tractor trailer as a unit was a different category of goods carriage requiring permit under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was number obtained and, therefore, the appellant was number entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 16 of the Taxation Act, 1957.
During the period 8.12.1989 to 31.3.1990, they were engaged by Central Power Research Institute of India CPRI to transport for them six units of transformers from Madras Port to its site at Bangalore.
Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single judge, the appellant carried the matter in appeal to the division bench of the Karnataka High Court by way of writ appeal number2324 of 1998.
For the above reasons, the High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant.
KAPADIA, J. The short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal, by special leave, is whether the taxation authority under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 was right in taxing the tractor trailer as a separate and distinct vehicle, different from a tractor and denying exemption sought by the appellant under section 16 of the said 1957 Act on the ground that the tractor trailer was a distinct category of goods carriage requiring permit under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
