This writ petition challenged the levy of entry tax on hydraulic cranes. The court dismissed the petition, holding that cranes are motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act and the issue was settled by Supreme Court precedent.
Petitioner's prayer for declaration is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.5007 of 1998
P.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner
..Vs..
1. State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by Secretary to Government
C.T. & R.E. Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai- 600009.
2. The Commercial Tax Officer,
Tallakulam, Madurai.
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Madurai North. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for a Writ of declaration to declare that the Crane is a machinery, and is not a motor vehicle as defined in the Motor Vehicle as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act to attract the Entry Tax, as demanded by the second respondent.
For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents: Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq
Special Government Pleader
This Writ Petition has been filed to declare that the Crane is a machinery, and is not a motor vehicle as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act to attract the Entry Tax, as demanded by the second respondent.
"7. We hold that the excavators and roadrollers are motor vehicles for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and they are registered under the Act. The High Court has noticed the admission of the appellants that the excavators and roadrollers are suitable for use on roads. However, the contention put forth now is that they are intended for use in the enclosed premises. Merely because a motor vehicle is put to a specific use such as being confined to enclosed premises, will not render the same to be a different kind of vehicle. Hence, in our view, the High Court has correctly decided the matter and the impugned order does not call for any interference by us. However, the question whether any motor vehicle has entered into a local area to attract tax under the Entry Tax Act or any concession given under the local Sales Tax Act will have to be dealt with in the course of assessment arising under the Entry Tax Act."
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamilnadu,
C.T. & R.E. Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai- 600009.
2. The Commercial Tax Officer,
Tallakulam, Madurai.
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Madurai North.
+1 CC to Spl. Govt. Pleader(T) sr 94237.
W.P.No.5007 of 1998
SPD(CO)
SP(26/12/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether hydraulic cranes are motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act when used in enclosed premises.
Whether hydraulic cranes attract entry tax despite being machinery restricted to enclosed areas.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bose Abraham Vs. State of Kerala and AnotherFollowed¶13
Bose Abraham Vs. State of Kerala and Another (2001) 3 SCC 157 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Senthilkumar
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government C.T. & R.E. Department
The Commercial Tax Officer, Tallakulam, Madurai
The Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North
VINEET KOTHARI
C. SARAVANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
