Holding

Dumpers are motor vehicles adapted for road use and the compensatory tax imposed on them under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 is valid.

Summary

The petitioners owned dumpers used primarily within mining areas and were taxed as motor vehicles under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. They contended that the dumpers, because of their oversized dimensions, heavy‑duty tyres and inability to operate on public highways, were not "adapted" for road use and therefore exempt from tax, and that the tax, being compensatory, could be levied only on vehicles actually using public roads. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "motor vehicle" in the Act, the purpose of the tax, and prior decisions on similar dumpers. It held that the dumpers, being wheeled conveyances propelled mechanically and fitted with rubber tyres, are adapted or suitable for road use despite occasional use within mines, and thus fall within the definition of motor vehicle. The Court further affirmed that the tax is a valid compensatory levy for the use of public roads and does not violate Article 301. Consequently, the petitioners' challenge was rejected and the tax was upheld.

Issues considered

Whether dumpers that exceed the dimensions prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Rules and are used mainly within mining areas qualify as "motor vehicles" under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975.
Whether a compensatory tax on motor vehicles can be imposed on vehicles that do not actually use public roads.

Legislation cited

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989s. Rule 92, s. Rule 93
Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975s. 3

Subjects

motor vehicle taxdumperscompensatory taxpublic road usageOrissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Actdefinition of motor vehicleArticle 301mining vehicles

Judgment

A THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, JAGANNATH
AREA AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF ORISSAAND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 20, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 :

C Motor Vehicle--Lery of tax on-Dumper fitted with heary duty tyres
and used within mining areas-Such dumpers exceeded pennissible dimen-
sions prescribed by Motor Vehicle Rules-Consequently, there was an embar-
go for the dumpers to be used on public roads-Held : dumpers in question
were motor vehicles-Hence, were taxable within the ambit of the
Act-Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989-Rr. 92 and 93.
D
Motor Vehicle--Lery of tax on-Dumpers fitted with heary duty tyres
and capable of being used on public roads-But actually used within mining
areas and not on public roads-Held: lery of tax on such dumpers was not
inconsistent with compensatory nature of tax.

E Motor Vehicle--Lery of tax on-Held : compensatory in nature.

Motor Vehicle--Lery of tax on-Validity of-Held : not violative of
Article 301-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 301.

The Dumpers belonging to the petitioners which were used within the
F mining areas were taxed as Motor Vehicles under The Orissa Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was
dismissed by the High Court. Being aggrieved the Petitioners preferred the ·
present Special Leave Petition.

G On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that the said dumpers
ran on tyres of higher load-carrying capacity and were not capable of being
used in public roads; that the"manufacturers of the dumpers had given a
certUicate that the dumpers were not meant for plying on highways because
(i) Culverts and bridges on highways were generally not designed to take
care of such axis loads continuously; (ii) The vehicles cannot run at
H reasonable speed on highway and hence obstruct the flow of normal traffic;
570
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER v. STAIB 571

(iii) Width and height of the equipment would adversely affect the traffic A
and minimum preferable width of the road required for plying these
vehicles was 50 ft; (iv) The vehicles were fitted with specially designed heavy
duty tyres and the heat generation was much more and generally could not
be run for more than about 5 kms. at one stretch; that since the dimensions
of the dumpers exceeded the permissible dimensions under the Act there
was an embargo for the dumpers to be used on public roads and as such B
the dumpers could not be held as Motor vehicles and could not be taxed
under the act; and that the tax on dumpers being compensatory in nature
the same could not be levied on vehicles which did not use the roads.

Dismissing.the petition, this Court
c
HELD : 1. On the facts of this case it cannot be held that the vehicles
in question were not adapted or suitable or capable of being used on public
roads, even though for most of the time it might actually be used within the
mining areas on the roads prepared by the mine owners. Therefore, it has
to be held that the dumpers in question are motor vehicles and are taxable D
within the ambit of Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. (581-F-G]

Central Coal Fields Ltd. v.,State of Orissa, (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 133
and Union of India v. Cltowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (1992) Supp. 3 SCC
14, relied on.
E
Boiani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, [1974) 2 SCC 777, referred to

2.1. 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 intercouse within the State by providing
roads and maintaining roads in a good state of repair. (582-C] F

Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1963) 1 SCR
49, relied on.

2.2. If a statute fixes a charge for a convenience or service provided G
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 H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A services provided by the State but for some reason or the otlier chooses
not to enjoy the services provided cannot escape the taxing liability on that
score nor 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 are no doubt
B . compensatory taxes but does not violate provisions of Article 301 of ~he
Constitution of India. [582-D-F]

· Steel Auth01ity of India Ltd. v. State of Olissa, Original Jurisdiction
case No. 847of1991 (Ori) decided on 18.6.92, referred to.

Regional Transport Officer-cum-Taxing Autholity, Rourke/a & Ors.
c [1995) 4 set 165, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) ·
No. 16476 of 1996.

D From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.96 of the Orissa High
Court in O.J.C. No. 811 of 1996.

Shanti Bhushan, Gopal Subramaniam, Sanjit Mohanty, H. Munshi,
Anip Sachthey and C.D. Singh for the Petitioners

E P.N. Misra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATIANAIK, J. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated 10.4.1996
F 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
G relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Central Coal Fields
Ltd. v. 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-~rgued the matter at length for a
considerable period and contended that the decision of this Court in
H Central Coal Fields case (supra) has no application we had indicated that
CHIEFGENERALMANAGERv. STATE[PATTANAIK,J.] 573

a reasoned order will follow and hence the reasons are being given for A
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.
B
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 trans-
mitted 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 c
a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for
use only in a facto~y 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 D
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 :
E
(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.
F
(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 grou.o.d 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.
G
In elaborating the first argumer..t 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 H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 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 be to used in any
B 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)
c
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;
D
(b) which is defective or damaged 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
E
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.
F
Overall dimension

93. OVERALL DIMENSION OF MOTOR VEHICLES;

(1) the overall width of a motor vehicle, measured at right
G 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;

H (ii) in the case of a transport vehicle, 2.7 metres.

p
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER v. STATE[PATIANAIK,J.) 575

EXPLANATION: A
For purposes of this Rule, a rear view mirror, or guard rail or
a direction indicator when in operation shall not be taken into
. considerationin measuring the overall width of a motor vehicle.

(2) The overall length of a motor vehicle other than a trailer, shall B
not exceed, -

(i) in the case of motor vehicle other than a trdnsport vehicle
having not more than two axles, 9 .5 metres;

(ii) in the case of a transport vehicle with rigid frame having two C
or more axles, 11.25 metres;

(iii) in the case of an articulated vehicle having more than two
axles, 16 metres;

(iv) in the case of truck trailer or tractor trailer combinations, 18 D
metres.

(3) In the case of an articulated vehicle or a tractor trailer com-
bination specially constructed and used for the conveyance of
individual load of exceptional length, - E
(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 p
twenty five kilometres per hour, the overall length shall not exceed
18 metres.

EXPLANATION

For the purpos~s of this Rule "overall length" means the length G
of the vehicle measures between parllel planes passing through the
extreme projection points of the vehicle exclusive of -

(i) a starting handle;

(ii) any hood when down; H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A (iii) any fire-escape fixed to a vehicle;

(iv) any post office letter-box, the length of which mea5ures
parallel to the axis of the vehicle, does not exceed 30 centimetres;

(v) any ladder used for loading or unloading from the roof of
B the vehicle or any tail or indicator lamp or number plate fixed to
a vehicles;

(vi) any spare wheel or spare wheel bracket or bumper fitted
to a vehicle;

c (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, -

D (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;

E (iii) in the case of a laden trailer carrying ISO series 1 Freight
Container, shall IJ.Ot 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.
F
(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.

G Explanation 1.-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;

H (b) in case of vehicle having only three axles, and the front axle
-.

• CHIEFGENERALMANAGERv. STATE[PATTANAIK,J.) 577

is only the steered axle, the distance measured horizontally and A
parallel to longitudinal axis of the vehicle between the centre of
the front axle and centre point between the two rear-axles;

Explanation II. - For the propose of this Rule, "overhang"
means the distance measured horizontally and parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the vehicles between two vertical planes at right B
angles to such axis passing through the two points specified
hereunder:

(A) The rearmost point of the vehicle exclude of -

(i) any hood when 1 do~ ; c
-i (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
D
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; E
(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
l carry not more than seven passengers exclusive of the driver; F
..L
(vii) any towing hook or other fitment which does not project
, beyond any fitment mentioned in clauses (ii) to (vi);

(viii) any mounted implement on a 3 point linkage of a tractor;
'
G
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 H

'•
;
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
'
A not be such as to obstruct either the vision from the rear view
mirror or project through the emergency exist at the rear or both;
ii
(B)(i) in. the case of a ve~icle only two axles, one of which is
not a steering axle, the centre point of that axle; or
·~
B (ii) in the case of a vehicie 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
c not exceed 7/24ths of the overall length of the vehicle;

(iv) in the case of a motor vehicle having only three axles where
t-
two front axles are steering axles, the centre point of the rearmost
axle;
D (v) in the case of the 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;

E (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
F in operation, or a driving mirror, shall project laterally more than i,>
355 millimetres beyond the centre line of the rear whee~ 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;
G
Provided that in case of agricultural 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
H in this behalf by the State Government, if it is satisfied that it is

1'·
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER v. STA1E(PATIANAIK,J.J 579

necessary because of the nature of any road or bridge or in the A
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 B
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;· c
(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 D
when loaded with any pole or rob or indivisible load so long as the
projecting part or parts do not exceed the distance of one metre
beyond the rearmost point of the motor vehicle."

According to Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, since the dimen-
sion of the dumpers in question exceed the permissible dimensions under E
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 dumper is a motor vehicle and whether the vehicle attracts the F
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. v. State of Olissa & 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 G
the decisions of this Court commencing from Boiani 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 H
..
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 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 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
B
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 Boiani Ores' case by interpretation
c 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.
D
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 on 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
E 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. v. 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
miming operation within the mining area and are not actually used on roads
F not are suitable for use on roads arl.d, 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
G in Central Coal Fields Ltd. v. State of Orissa, [1992] Suppl. 3 SCC 133 held
the mere 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,
H or that they have an unladen and laden capacity depending on their weight
CHIEFGENERALMANAGERv. STATE{PATIANAIK,J.) 581

and size, is of no consequence for, dumpers are vehicles used for transport A
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
B
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 - c
(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; D
(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 E
tyres and the heat generation is much more and generally cannot
be run for more than about 5 kms. at one stretch which is not so
in case of normal conventional hauling units which ply on highways.

On these facts it is difficult for us to hold that the vehicles are not p
adapted or suitable or capable of being used on public roads, even though
for most of the time it might actually be used within the mining areas on
the roads prepared by the mine owners. Following the two earlier judgment
of this Court in Central Coal Fields Ltd. (Supra and Union of India v.
Clwwgule & Co. (supra) we hold that the dumpers in question are motor G
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 v.
State of Orissa (supra) it was held : H
'582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A "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 Boiani Ores case (supra)
were liable to taxation on the footing of their use or kept for use
on public roads; the network of which, the State spreads, maintains
B 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
C facilitates trade, commerce and intercourse within the State by providing
roads and maintaining roads in a good state of repair. As has been held
by this Court in Automobile Transp01t Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,
[1963] 1 SCR 491, it would not be right to say that the tax is not compen-
satory because the precise or specific amount collected is not actually used
D 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
E or received or advantage which can be received. The mere fact that any
particular individual though can take advantage of the convenience of the
servi_ces provided by the State but for some reason or the other c~ooses
not to enjoy the services provided cannot escape the taxing liability on that
score nor 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
F which is capable of being used on the public roads are no doubt compen-
satory truces but does not violate provisions of Article 301 of the Constitu-
tion of India.

Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
G petitioners strongly relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the
Orissa High Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. the State·
of Orissa., in Original Jwisdiction Case No. 847 of 1991 disposed of by a
judgment dated 18.6.92, wherein Orissa High Court had held that vehicles
kept by the Steel Authority of India for being used within its premises are
H not liable to pay tax under the Orissa Motor VehicleTaxationAct. But the
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER v. STATE [PATIANAIK, J.] 583

very decision has been reversed by this Court in Regional Transp01t Officer- A
cum-Taxing Authority, Rourke/a & 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
remam.
B
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.

v.s.s. Petition dismissed.
c