http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, JAGANNATH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/09/1996

BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) KURDUKAR S.P. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:               THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1996 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik      Shanti Bhushan,  Gopal  Subramaniam,  Sr.Advs.,  Sanjit Mohanty, H.Munshi,  Ahip Sachthey  and C.D.Singh, Advs. with them for the Petitioners      P.N.Misra, Adv. for the Respondent                       J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:      PATTANAIK, J.      This Special  Leave Petition  is directed  against  the judgment of  the Division  Bench of  the Orissa  High  Court dated 10.4.1996 passed in Original Jurisdiction case No. 811 of 1996.  The question  for consideration  before the Orissa High  Court   was  whether  the  Dumpers  belonging  to  the petitioner Which  are  used  within  the  mining  areas  are taxable as  Motor Vehicle  under the  provisions  of  Orissa Motor Vehicles  Taxation Act  (referred to  as "The Taxation Act"). The  Orissa High  Court relying  upon the decision of this Court in the case of Central Coal Fields Ltd. vs. State of Orissa  & Batch  - 1992  Supl. (3)  SCC 133 dismissed the Writ Petition.  When the  present application was listed for admission, the  same was  dismissed by  us.  But  since  Mr. Shanti Bhushan,  learned senior  counsel appearing  for  the petitioners  had  re-argued  the  matter  at  length  for  a considerable period  and contended that the decision of this Court  in   Central  Coal   Field’s  case  (supra)  has  not application we  had indicated  that a  reasoned  order  will follow and  hence the reasons are being given for dismissing the Special Leave Petition.-      Under Section  3 of  the Taxation  Act,  tax  shall  be levied on  every motor  vehicle used  or kept for use within the State at the rate specified in the Schedule.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

    The  expression   "Motor  Vehicle"  means  any  wheeled conveyance  which  is  propelled  mechanically  is  a  motor vehicle if  it is adapted for use upon the road irrespective of whether  the power  of propulsion  is transmitted thereto from an  internal or  external source and includes a chassis to which  a body  has not  been attached  and a trailer; but does not  include a  vehicle running  upon fixed  rails or a vehicle of  a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises Because of the latter part of the definition of Motor Vehicles, the petitioner had made out the  case before  the Orissa High Court that the dumpers in question are so heavy that they cannot move on the public road and,  therefore, are not taxable under the Taxation Act but the High Court had negatived the said contention.      Mr. Shanti  Bhushan, learned  senior counsel reiterated the same  arguments in this Court and essentially raised two contentions:-      (1) the  Dumpers  which  have  been      taxed under  the Taxation  Act  are      used only  within the  mining areas      and are  not capable  of being used      in the public roads and, therefore,      cannot be held to be Motor Vehicles      and consequently  are  not  taxable      under the Taxation Act.      (2) secondly,  the  learned  senior      counsel  argued  that  the  tax  on      vehicles  being   compensatory   in      nature, levy  of such  tax  can  be      sustained only  on the  ground that      the vehicles  used  the  roads  for      which tax is levied. If the vehicle      in question  did not  use the roads      and yet  tax is levied on the same,      the  said  levy  is  liable  to  be      struck down.      In elaborating  the first  argument Mr.  Shanti Bhushan took us  through some of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Rules which  prescribe the  dimension of such vehicle in the matter of  width, length  or height  and which prohibits the vehicles beyond  such dimensions to be used on public roads. In this connection the learned senior counsel brought to our notice  Rules   92  and  93  of  the  Motor  vehicles  Rules (hereinafter referred  to as  "the Rules’  which are  quoted hereinbelow in extenso:-      RULE 92      GENERAL: (1) No person shall use or      allow to  be  used  in  any  public      place any  Motor vehicle which does      not comply with     the  provisions      of this Chapter.      (provided that nothing contained in      this rule  shall apply  to vehicles      manufactured prior  to  the  coming      into force  of  the  Central  Motor      Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993)      Nothing in this Rule shall apply to      a motor vehicle-      (a) which  has been  damaged in  an      accident or to a vehicle stopped or      impeded owing  to shortage  of fuel      or other temporary defects while at      the place  at which the accident or      defect occurred;      (b) which  is defective  or damaged

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

    and is being removed to the nearest      place or repair or disposal      or      (c) which  is more than fifty years      old   from    the   date   of   its      registration and  is  being  driven      for taking  part in  a vintage  car      rally:      Provided that where a motor vehicle      can  no  longer  remain  under  the      effective  control  of  the  person      driving, the same shall not be used      in a public place except by towing.      Overall dimension      93.  OVERALL   DIMENSION  OF  MOTOR      VEHICLES:      (1) the  overall width  of a  motor      vehicle, measured  at right  angles      to the  axis of  the motor  vehicle      between    perpendicular     planes      enclosing the extreme points, shall      not exceed;      (i) in the case of a motor vehicle,      other than a transport vehicle, 2.5      metres;      (ii) in  the case  of  a  transport      vehicle, 2.7 metres.      EXPLANATION:      For purposes  of this  Rule, a rear      view mirror,  or guard  rail  or  a      direction   indicator    when    in      operation) shall  not be taken into      consideration  in   measuring   the      overall width of a motor vehicle.      (2) The  overall length  of a motor      vehicle other than a trailer, shall      not exceed,-      (i) in  the case  of motor  vehicle      other  than   a  transport  vehicle      having not more than two axles, 9.5      metres;      (ii) in  the case  of  a  transport      vehicle with rigid frame having two      or more axles,, 11.25 metres;      (iii) in the case of an articulated      vehicle having more than two exles,      16 metres;      (iv) in  the case  of truck trailer      or tractor trailer combinations, 18      metres.      (3) In  the case  of an articulated      vehicle  or   a   tractor   trailer      combination  specially  constructed      and  used  for  the  conveyance  of      individual  load   of   exceptional      length,-      (i)  if   all  the  wheels  of  the      vehicle are  fitted with  pneumatic      tyres, or      (ii)  if  all  the  wheels  of  the      vehicle   are   not   fitted   with      pneumatic tyres,  so  long  as  the      vehicle is  not driven  at a  speed      exceeding  twenty  five  kilometres      per hour,  the overall length shall      not exceed 18 metres.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

    EXPLANATION      For  the   purposes  of  this  Rule      "overall length"  means the  length      of  the  vehicle  measures  between      parallel planes passing through the      extreme projection  points  of  the      vehicle exclusive of -      (i) a starting handle;      (ii) any hood when down;      (iii) any  fire-escape fixed  to  a      vehicle;      (iv) any  post  office  letter-box,      the  length   of   which   measures      parallel  to   the  axis   of   the      vehicle,   does   not   exceed   30      centimetres;      (v) any  ladder used for loading or      unloading  from  the  roof  of  the      vehicle or  any tail  or  indicator      lamp or  number plate  fixed  to  a      vehicle;      (vi) any spare wheel or spare wheel      bracket  or   bumper  fitted  to  a      vehicle;      (vii)  any  towing  hook  or  other      fitment  which   does  not  project      beyond  any   fitment  covered   by      clauses (iii) to (vi).      (4) the  overall height  of a motor      vehicle measured  from the  surface      on which the vehicle rests,-      (i) in  the case of a vehicle other      than a double-decked motor vehicle,      shall not exceed 3.8 metres;      (ii) in the case of a double-decked      motor vehicle, shall not exceed      4.75 metres;      (iii)  in   the  case  of  a  laden      trailer  carrying   ISO  series   1      Freight Container, shall not exceed      4.2 metres;      Provided  that  the  provisions  of      clauses  (i)  to  (iii)  shall  not      apply to  fire-escape tower  wagons      and other  special purpose vehicles      exempted  by   general  or  special      order of registering authority.      (5) The overhang of a tractor shall      not exceed 1.85 metres.      (6)  The   overhang  of  the  motor      vehicle other  than a tractor shall      not exceed 60% of the wheel base.      Explanation I. - For the purpose of      this rule "wheel base" means,-      (a) in  the case  of vehicles  with      only  two   axles,   the   distance      measured horizontally  and parallel      to the  longitudinal  axis  of  the      vehicle, between  the centre points      of the front axle and rear axle;      (b) in  case of vehicle having only      three axles,  and the front axle is      only the steered axle, the distance      measured horizontally  and parallel      to longitudinal axis of the vehicle

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

    between the  centre  of  the  front      axle and  centre point  between the      two rear-axles;      Explanation II.  - For  the purpose      of this  Rule, "overhang" means the      distance measured  horizontally and      parallel to  the longitudinal  axis      of   the   vehicles   between   two      vertical planes  at right angles to      such axis  passing through  the two      points specified hereunder :      (A)  The   rearmost  point  of  the      vehicle exclude of-      (i) any hood when down;      (ii) any  post  office  letter-box,      the  length   of   which   measured      parallel to  the longitudinal  axis      of the  vehicle,  does  not  exceed      thirty centimetres;      (iii) any  ladder forming part of a      turnable  fire-escape  fixed  to  a      vehicle;      (iv)  any   ladder  used  when  the      vehicle is  at rest  for loading or      unloading  from  the  roof  of  the      vehicle, or any tail lamp or number      plate fixed to a vehicle;      (v) any  spare wheel or spare wheel      bracket fitted to a vehicle;      (vi) any language carrier fitted to      a motor  vehicle constructed solely      for  carriage   of  passengers  and      their effects  and adapted to carry      not  more   than  seven  passengers      exclusive of the driver;      (vii)  any  towing  hook  or  other      fitment  which   does  not  project      beyond  any  fitment  mentioned  in      clauses (ii) to (iv);      (viii) any mounted implement on a 3      point linkage of a tractor;      provided that  in  the  case  of  a      stage carriage:-      (a) the projection of any bumper or      advertisement panel  fitted at  the      rear  of   the  vehicle  shall  not      exceed fifteen centimetres;      (b) the projection in respect of an      advertisement panel  shall  not  be      such  as  to  obstruct  either  the      vision  from  the  rear  mirror  or      project through the emergency exist      at the rear or both;      (B) (i)    in the case of a vehicle      only two axles, one of which is not      a steering axle, the centre point      of that axle; or      (ii)  in  the  case  of  a  vehicle      having only  three axles  and front      axle is the only steering axle; The      centre point of the rear most axle;      (iii) in  the case  of any  vehicle      registered  in   India  before  the      commencement  of   these  rules  it      shall suffice  if the overhang does

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

    not exceed  7/24ths of  the overall      length of the vehicle;      (iv) in the case of a motor vehicle      having only  three axles  where two      front axles are steering axles, the      centre point of the rearmost axle;      (v) in  the case of a motor vehicle      having four  axles, where two front      axles are  steering axles,  a point      102  millimetres  in  rear  of  the      centre of  a straight  line joining      the centre  points of  the rearmost      two axles;      (vi) in  any  other  case  a  point      situated on  the longitudinal  axis      of the  vehicle such  that  a  line      drawn from  it at  right  angle  to      that axis  will  pass  through  the      centre  of   the  minimum   turning      circle of the vehicle.      (7) No  part of  the vehicle  other      than a direction indicator, when in      operation,  or  a  driving  mirror,      shall project  laterally more  than      355 millimetres  beyond the  centre      line of the rear wheel, in the case      of single rear wheels, or more than      152 millimetres  beyond the extreme      outer edge  of the  outer tyres, in      the case of dual rear wheels;      Provided   that    in    case    of      agriculotural   tractors    lateral      projection  upto   700  millimetres      beyond the central line of the rear      wheel shall be permitted.      Provided that  the State Government      or any authority authorised in this      behalf by  the State Government, if      it  is   satisfied   that   it   is      necessary because  of the nature of      any  road   or  bridge  or  in  the      interest  of   public  safety,  may      prohibit or  restrict the operation      of a  motor vehicle  in a specified      route or  area unless  such vehicle      complies  with   the   requirements      specified by  the State  Government      for such route or area,      (8)  No   motor  vehicle  shall  be      loaded in  such a  manner that  the      load or any part thereof extends,-      (i) laterally  beyond the  side  of      the body;      (ii)  to   the  front   beyond  the      foremost part  of load  body of the      vehicle;      (iii)  to   the  rear   beyond  the      rearmost part of the vehicle;      (iv) to  a height beyond the limits      specified in sub-rule (4):      Provided that  clause  (iii)  shall      not apply  to a goods carriage when      loaded with  any  pole  or  rod  or      indivisible load  so  long  as  the      projecting part  or  parts  do  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

    exceed the  distance of  one  metre      beyond the  rearmost point  of  the      motor vehicle."      According  to   Mr.  Shanti   Bhushan,  learned  senior counsel, since  the dimension  of the  dumpers  in  question exceed the permissible dimensions under the aforesaid Rules, there is  an embargo  for the  dumpers to  be used on public roads and  as such,  the vehicle  cannot be  taxed under the Taxation Act.  We are  unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the  submission of  the learned  senior counsel for the petitioner. The  crux of  the question is whether the bumper is a  motor vehicle  and whether  the vehicle  attracts  the liability of  tax under  Section 3  of the Taxation Act? The very question came up for consideration before this Court in the case  of Central  Coal Fields Ltd. vs. State of Orissa & batch (supra)  wherein the  various provisions of the Orissa Motor Vehicles  Taxation Act was under consideration and the vehicles which  had been taxed under the Taxation Act in the said case were dumpers and rockers. This Court after tracing the legislative  history and  the decisions  of  this  Court commencing from  Bolani ores  Ltd. State of Orissa- (1974) 2 SCC 777,  repelled argument  of the  mine  owners  who  used dumpers within  their mining premises to the effect that the dumpers are  vehicles not  adapted for  use upon  roads and, therefore, are  outside the  scope of  the Taxation  Act and held that  these dumpers run on tyres, in marked contrast to chain plates  like caterpillars  or military  tanks. It  was also held that by the use of rubber tyres it is evident that they have  been adapted  for use  on roads, which means they are suitable  for being used on public roads and on the mere fact that they are required at places to run at a particular speed is  not to  detract from  the position otherwise clear that they  are adapted  for use on roads. The very nature of these vehicles  make it clear that they are not manufactured or adapted  for use  only in factories or enclosed premises. The mere  fact that  the Dumpers or Rockers as suggested are heavy and  cannot move on the roads without damaging them is not to  say that they are not suitable for use on roads. The word "adapted"  in the  provision was  read as "suitable" in Bolani Ores’  case by  interpretation on the strength of the language in  Entry 57,  List II  of the Constitution. On the fact situation,  therefore, it must be held that Dumpers and Rockers are  vehicles adapted  or suitable  for use on roads and being  motor vehicles per se, were liable to taxation on the footing of their use or kept for use on public roads.      The various  restrictions contained  in Rules 92 and 93 referred to  by Mr.  Shanti Bhushan,  learned senior counsel are intended  to lay  down the outer limits for the vehicles to be plied or, the public road. But that does not mean that the vehicles  which are  otherwise motor vehicles within the definition clause  go out  of the definition the moment they exceed the limit as provided in Rules 92 or 93 of the Rules. the taxability of dumpers again came up before this Court in the case  of Union  of India  & Ors. vs. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. &  Ors.- 1992 Sup. (3) Supreme Court Cases 141. In this case an argument had been advanced that the dumpers are used only in  mining operation within the mining area and are not actually used  on roads  nor are  suitable for  use on roads and, therefore,  are not  taxable. The Judicial Commissioner of Goa,  Daman and  Diu accepted  the contention and allowed the appeal.  Union of  India had  come up  in appeal to this Court. This  Court reversed  the decision  of  the  Judicial Commissioner of  Goa, Daman  and Diu  and relying  upon  the earlier decision  of this  Court in Central Coal Fields Ltd. vs. State  of Orissa - 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 133 held the mere

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

fact that  dumpers were  used solely  on the premises of the owner or  that they were in closed premises or permission of the authorities  was needed  to move  them from one place to another or  that they  are not  intended to  be used  or are incapable of  being used  for general  purposes or that they have an unladen and laden capacity depending on their weight and size  is of no consequence for dumpers are vehicles used for transport of goods and thus liable to pay a compensatory tax for  the availability  of roads  for them  to  run  upon commission.      The dumpers  in question  which have  been levied under the Taxation Act run on tyres as is apparent from the letter to the  Automative Research  Association of India dated 25th January 1993  which has been annexed as Annexure ‘C’ to this Special Leave  Petition but  the tyres  are of  higher  load carrying capacity  from the  certificate given  by Hindustan Motors which  has been  annexed  as  Annexure  ‘D’  to  this Special Leave  Petition. It  appears that  the reasons which impelled the  manufacturer to  give the certificate that the vehicles are not meant for plying on highway are -      (i)   Culverts   and   bridges   on      highways are generally not designed      to take  care of  such  axle  loads      continuously;      (ii)   The vehicles  cannot run  at      reasonable  speed  on  highway  and      hence obstruct  the flow  of normal      traffic;      (iii)  Width   and  height  of  the      equipment will adversely affect the      traffic  and   minimum   preferable      width  of  the  road  required  for      plying these vehicles is 50 ft.      (iv) The  vehicles are  fitted with      specially designed heavy duty tyres      and the  heat  generation  is  much      more and  generally cannot  be  run      for more  that about  5 kms. at one      stretch which  is not so in case or      normal conventional  hauling  units      which ply on highways.      On these  facts it is difficult for us to hold that the vehicles are  not adapted  or suitable  or capable  of being used on  public roads,  even though  for most of the time it might actually  being used  within the  mining areas  on the roads prepared  by the  mining  owners.  Following  the  two earlier judgments  of this Court in Central Coal Fields Ltd. (supra) and  Union of  India vs.  Chowgule &  Co. (supra) we hold that the dumpers in question are motor vehicles and are taxable within the ambit of the Taxation Act.      Coming  now  to  the  second  argument  of  Mr.  Shanti Bhushan, learned  senior counsel which is on the question of compensatory nature  of the Act it is to be seen that in the very decision  in Central  Coal Fields Limited vs. of Orissa (supra) it was held:      "Thus on  the  fact  situation,  we      have no  hesitation in holding that      the  High   Court  was   right   in      concluding that Dumpers and Rockers      are vehicles  adapted  or  suitable      for use  on roads  and being  motor      vehicles per  se, as held in Bolani      Ores case  (supra) were  liable  to      taxation on  the footing  of  their      use  or  kept  for  use  on  public

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

    roads; the  network of  which,  the      State  spreads,  maintains  it  and      keeps available  for use  of  motor      vehicles and hence is entitled to a      regulatory and compensatory tax."      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 intercourse  within the  State by  providing  roads  and maintaining roads  in a  good state  of repairs. As has been held by this Court in Automobile Transport Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan &  Ors. (1963) 1 SCR 491, it would not be right to say that  the tax is not compensatory because the precise or specific amount  collected is not actually used in providing any  facilities.   If  a   statute  fixes  a  charge  for  a convenience or service provided 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 services provided by  the State  but for  some reason  or  the  other chooses rot to enjoy the services provided cannot escape the taxing  liability  on  that  score  not  can  the  provision imposing the  tax become invalid on that score. Such levy of tax for  keeping a motor vehicle for use on the public roads or which is capable of being used on the public roads are no doubt compensatory  taxes but does not violate provisions of Article 301 of the Constitution of India.      Mr. Shanti  Bhushan, learned  senior counsel  appearing for the petitioners strongly relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of Steel Authority of  India td.  vs. the State of Orissa in Original Jurisdiction case  no. 847 of 1991 disposed of by a judgment dated 18.6.92,  wherein the  Orissa High Court had held that the vehicles  kept by the Steel Authority of India for being used within its premises are not liable to pay tax under the Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. But the very decision has been reversed  by this  Court in Regional Transport Officer- cum-Taxing Authority,  Rourkela &  Ors.  1995  (4)  SCC  165 wherein it was held that the vehicle in question kept by the Steel Authority of India are taxable under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act  but the  matter was  remitted on an enquiry on which item of the Schedule the levy in question will remain.      In the premises, as aforesaid, the dumpers belonging to the petitioners are taxable as held by the Orissa High Court and we see no infirmity in the said judgment.