CHAKIAT AGENCIES (P) LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES B DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the dictum in M/s Chakiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2001 2 KerLT 840 as to the liability of the petitioners to satisfy tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 has lost its significance by virtue of the amendment made to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as per Act 54 of 1994, particularly defining the terms 'semi-trailer' and 'trailer' under Sections 2(39) and 2(46) respectively (so as to absolve the petitioners from the liability) is the point sought to be projected. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the amendment is 'clarificatory' in nature and hence, though it was introduced as per the Act 54 of 1994, w.e.f. 14-11-1994, it should be applicable right from the beginning and the petitioners are not liable to satisfy any tax in respect of the 'chassis' as depicted in Ext. P-1. Both the petitioners are shipping and transporting agents, undertaking loading and unloading of cargo into and from the Vessels in the 'wharf' area of Cochin Port, which is a Major Port, governed by the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. According to the petitioners, the roads lying within the Port area are not 'public roads' coming under the control of the State Government or the National Highways Department, as the case may be, and as such, a particular type of vehicle within the Port area for transporting the Containors/cargo are not liable to be taxed under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) mainly for the reason that it is not a mechanically propelled motor vehicle, but a particular type of carriage having no wheels in the front and have necessarily to be hooked on to the 'prime mover' for being pulled on. It is also the case of the petitioners that the owner of the 'prime mover' is somebody else, who has paid the tax based on the laden weight of the prime mover, taken together with the maximum weight of the trailers portion, attachable to the prime mover.

(2.) In connection with the Shipping Agency activities, the petitioner's company in O.P. No. 27396 of 2001 owned 105 chassis like those as given in Ext. P-1, which were being used strictly within the encroached premises of the Port Area to facilitate the movement of Cargo from one part of the Port Area to another. The above vehicles were imported in 1979 and pursuant to the steps taken by the Joint RTO, Mattancherry, they were got registered, assigning separate Registration numbers in the year 1986. But, subsequent to the registration, the Joint RTO, Mattancherry raised a demand for tax of the chassis for the period from 2-6-1979 onwards, under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. Since the Appeal and subsequent Revision preferred before the departmental authorities did not turn to be fruitful, it was challenged by filing O.P. No. 2365 of 1987 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the demand notice and orders in appeal and revision, as per the judgment reported in United States Lines Agency v. State of Kerala and others,1988 1 KerLT 259 and directed the concerned authority to decide the primary question, whether the vehicle concerned will come within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, before proceeding further.

(3.) Pursuant to the above verdict, the matter was reconsidered by the assessing authority, who held that Section 2(18) of the M.V. Act, 1939 was attracted to the case in hand and imposed the liability to pay tax, which was confirmed in Appeal as well as in Revision. This made the petitioner to approach this Court again, by filing OP. 3504 of 1992, which was heard along with the connected cases involving a similar dispute. As per the decision reported in M/s Chakiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2001 2 KerLT 840; a Division Bench of this Court declined interference and the original petitions were dismissed, holding that trailers were also motor vehicles, adapted for use on the roads and hence taxable under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 and that the contention raised by the petitioners that 'Port area' was not a 'public place', was not correct or acceptable.