HARRISONS AND CROSFIELD LTD Vs. KERALA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963 charges to tax motor vehicles "used or kept for use in the State". 'Motor vehicle' is not a terra defined in that Act but the definition in the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 would apply. That is so provided in the Act. The definition of 'Motor vehicle' in the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 as contained in S.2(18) of the Act is as follows: "Motor vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto frorn an external or internal 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." It is apparent from the definition that motor vehicle must be one adapted for use on roads. It is the construction of this term that I am concerned with in the second appeal.

(2.) PLAINTIFF company possessed a tractor K.L.Q. 2102 for which the company was called upon to pay tax under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 Notices were served on the plaintiff and two such notices one for Rs. 2400 for the period from 1-7-1958 to 30-3-1963 and another for Rs. 1,320 for the period from 1 4 1963 to 31 3 1966 are challenged in the suit and an injunction restraining proceedings for recovery pursuant to the notices is sought for. Subsequent to the filing of the suit Government exempted the vehicle from tax for the period from 1 7 1958 to 30 6-1963, with the result that the claim for tax from 1-7-1S63 to 31 3 ,966 is alone challenged thereafter.

(3.) THE more serious contention turns on the construction of the definition of the term 'motor vehicle'. THE counsel for the appellant-plaintiff cannot certainly contend that the vehicle cannot be put to use elsewhere. In fact the counsel has not attempted to go to that extent. THE case is that actually it is not being put to use anywhere outside the factory premises. That it is not physically possible to pat it to use elsewhere than the factory premises is not a contention which is urged or which, if urged, would stand. THErefore the question is whether the fact that it is not being used or even the fact that it is not intended to be used outside the factory premises would be sufficient to take it out of the category of motor vehicles as defined in S.2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. That would depend upon the construction to be put on the words 'adapted' in the sub-section. According to counsel for the appellant 'adapted to be used' must be read to mean 'used' and inspiration for this is sought to be drawn from a decision in State of Mysore v. Syed Ibrahim (AIR. 1967 Supreme Court 1424).