STATE OF KERALA Vs. JACOB JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is taxed here under the provisions of the Keral a Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (the Taxation Act for short) is not one vehicle but really two vehicles used in combination, the one which merely supplies the traction and is not itself constructed to carry any load and has been rightly called a tractor and the other drawn by the former and used for carrying goods and rightly called a trailer see the definitions in S. 2 (30) and (32) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which are attracted by S. 2 (1) of the Taxation Act. (This is the basis on which the case was argued before the learned single judge and rightly so. That goods can be carried in the tractor and that it can also seat passengers besides the driver does not make it any the less a vehicle not itself constructed to carry any load. The contention that the tractor by itself is constructed to carry loads is non advanced for the first time. It is given the lie direct by the photographs Ext s. P. 11, P. 12 and P. 13 as also by the circumstance that there is no laden weight specified in the permit for its use indeed the appellate authority appears to have proceeded on the footing, now conceded to be untenable, that the two vehicles in combination constitute one vehicle constructed to carry loads.) The tractor by itself is a motor vehicle but not a goods vehicle since it is neither constructed nor adapted for the carriage of goods or actually used for the carriage of goods. (See S. 2 (18) and (8)respectively of the Motor Vehicles Act ). Therefore as the learned single judge has rightly held it can only be taxed under Clause. 5 of Schedule I to the taxation Act Motor vehicles not themselves constructed to carry any load" not under the residuary clause, Clause. 7. The trailer by itself is a motor vehicle as also a goods vehicle. But there being a special entry in Schedule I for trailers used for carrying goods, namely, sub-clause (m) of Clause. 3 under the very heading "goods vehicle", it is obvious that as the learned single judge has held, the trailer cannot be brought within any of the earlier sub-clauses of the clause which deal with vehicles generally and not with that special kind of vehicle called a trailer.

(2.) WO are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned single judge and dismiss this appeal from his order. . .