Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),
m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)
})(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga');
ga('create', 'UA-87326-4', 'auto'); ga('require', 'linkid', 'linkid.js');
ga('require', 'displayfeatures'); ga('send', 'pageview'); The Crane Owners'
Association And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 11 August, 1995
Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 15 docs - [View All]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 3 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Atul Glass Industries (Pvt) Ltd. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Etc on 10
July, 1986
Section 192 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Indo International Industries vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Uttar ... on 25
March, 1981
User Queries
motor vehicle act 1988
motor vehicle act 1988
cranes
octroi
hegde
bharucha
bombay municipal corporation
octroi doctypes: bombay
1995 fromdate:1-1-1995 todate:31-12-1995 doctypes: judgments
bharucha
hegde doctypes:judgments
cranes
octroi
bombay municipal corporation
commercial meaning
Bombay High Court
The Crane Owners' Association And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 11
August, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996 (2) BomCR 587, (1995) 97 BOMLR 559
Author: N Vyas
Bench: N Vyas
JUDGMENT N.D. Vyas, J.
1. The questions raised therein being similar, both the petitions are disposed
off by this common judgment. The petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 751 of
1993 is an Association of owners of 'Cranes' and is registered under the
Non-trading Corporation Act of 1959. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1008
of 1993 are owners of three container handlers which are registered as
'Vehicles' with the R.T.O., Raigad under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. For the sake of convenience, I shall only deal with the facts of the Writ
Petition No. 751 of 1993.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that the mobile cranes (which
description for the present petitions would include container handlers also) are
vehicles and are registered as motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988; that formerly cranes were registered as non-transport vehicles, however,
with the introduction of the new Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, they came to be
classified as transport vehicles. The petitioners' grievance is that when such a
crane is brought within the octroi limits with the intention of using it
permanently, it is required to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act with
the Regional Transport Office having its jurisdiction over the concerned
Municipal or Octroi area and if the vehicle remains in another State for more
than twelve months, then it is liable to be registered in the other State as
required under section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; that the certificate
issued in one State is effective throughout India subject to what is provided in
section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act; that the crane is classified as
non-transport vehicle and is compulsorily required to be registered under the
Motor Vehicles Act and that the cranes are used for lifting things and are
generally used only in private places like Docks etc. It is the further
submission of the petitioners that a vehicle by its very nature, moves from one
place to another and the cranes are also required to be taken from one region to
another as work necessitates and remain at any place for a short period of time.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that hitherto the cranes were permitted
ingress and egress within the Municipal limits of Greater Bombay by Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as B.M.C.) without any
demand of octroi and the crane was treated as any other vehicle and having
regard to its required mobility on account of the nature of vehicle, octroi was
not demanded. However, as the respondents now required the petitioners to follow
'R' form procedure as per Rules 7 and 8 of the Municipal Octroi Rules
(Exemptions) in respect of cranes .registered with the R.T.O. within the octroi
limits, taken outside such limits and returning and as the B.M.C. charged octroi
on cranes treating them as 'machinery' and not 'vehicles' when the cranes
registered as vehicles outside Greater Bombay were brought within B.M.C's octroi
limits, the present petitions have been filed. In the Writ Petition No. 1008 of
1993 it is the grievance of the petitioners that the three cranes which are
brought within the octroi limits of Greater Bombay on a casual visit i.e. for
work or even for repairs, octroi is demanded or 'R' form formality had to be
undergone.
3. A short question that requires consideration is whether a mobile crane is a
'vehicle or machinery. It is the contention of the petitioners that the same is
a 'vehicle'. On the other hand, the respondents contend that it is a
'machinery'. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be
advantageous to reproduce certain provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation
Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) which are relevant for that
purpose. Section 3(q) of the said Act defines 'vehicle' and the said definition
is as follows:"3(q) 'vehicle' includes a carriage, cart, van, dray, truck, handcart and
wheeled conveyance of any description capable to being used on the streets of
the city."
Section 139 of the said Act provides for imposition of tax by B.M.C. on the
following items:1)
Property taxes;
2)
3)
4)
Octroi.
Section 180 of the said Act provides as follows:"180. Except as hereinafter provided, a tax at rates not exceeding those speci
fied in Schedule G shall be levied on all vehicles and on all animals of the des
cription specified in the said schedule which are kept within Greater Bombay."
However, section 181 of the said Act provides that no tax shall be levied in
respect of certain items enumerated therein. Section 192 of the said Act
provides for levy of octroi at rates not exceeding to those respectively
specified in Schedule H to the said Act in respect of articles mentioned in the
said schedule, on the entry of the said articles into Greater Bombay for
consumption, use or sale thereof. Schedule H thus enumerates the articles and
the relevant entries as far as the present petitioners are concerned, are
Entries 50 and 51. Entry 50 deals with 'machinery and Entry 51 deals with
'vehicles.' The said two entries are reproduces below:-
"In this Act, unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context'vehicle' includes a carriage, cart, van, dray, truck, handcart and wheeled
conveyance of any description capable of being used on the streets of the city."
The definition is not similar to that of Motor Vehicles Act which provides that
a motor vehicle or a vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted
for use upon roads. However, since the word 'Vehicle' has been defined in the
B.M.C. Act, the same must be understood to mean that wherever used in the
statute. Shri Hegde submitted that the word 'Vehicle' was defined in the said
B.M.C. Act and has to be so interpreted and understood as the same under all the
provisions of the said statute. It was his submission that when for the purpose
of vehicle tax cranes were treated as vehicles, for the purpose of octroi also
they must be treated as vehicles. Shri Bharucha, on the other hand, submitted
that it was true that the term 'Vehicle' has been defined in the B.M.C. Act but
the same was not applicable as far as Octroi was concerned. It was his
submission that the definition given in section 3(q) of the said Act started
with the words 'unless there be something repugnant in the subject or
context.....' and therefore when one has to consider the said definition in the
context of octroi, it was not possible to consider the item as 'Vehicle'. I do
not see any substance in the submissions made by Shri Bharucha. First of all,
the term 'Vehicle' has been defined in the said Act and that should operate in
respect of the entire Act. It would be erroneous to submit that the same word
defined in the statute has to mean differently for different purposes. More
important is the fact that for tax purposes, the B.M.C. has been recovering
vehicle tax under the B.M.C. Act itself, treating the mobile cranes as vehicles,
thus following the definition of 'Vehicle' given in section 3(q) of the said
Act. It does not lie in the mouth of the B.M.C. than to turn around and treat
cranes as 'machinery' and not 'Vehicles' for the purposes of octroi. Once an
article is accepted as 'Vehicle', it cannot be treated differently for the
purposes of octroi.
8. During the arguments, Shri Hegde drew my attention to couple of octroi bills
in respect of cranes which were brought into the Municipal limits wherein he
pointed out that in fact for octroi purposes also, the respondents have treated
such cranes as vehicles and recovered octroi treating them under item Under
Entry 51 and not Entry 52. On the other hand, Shri Bharucha produced few other
documents showing that for octroi purposes also, the B.M.C. had treated such
cranes as 'machinery' and not 'vehicles'. In view of the fact that the material
produced by Shri Hegde and Shri Bharucha is not supported by any affidavit, I do
not wish to take any cognizance of the same.
9. In my view, therefore, the mobile cranes are 'Vehicles' and not 'Machinery'.
In view thereof, they are to be treated as 'Vehicles' for all purposes including
octroi. In view of the above, the petitioners succeed in the petitions. The
respondents, their Officers and Employees are directed not to demand and collect
octroi levy or deposits under 'R' form in respect of mobile cranes and container
handlers. I am informed that as per the interim orders, the petitioners in Writ
Petition No. 1008 of 1993 paid an aggregate amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- as octroi
to the B.M.C. The said amount shall be refunded with interest at the rate of 12%
p.a. from the date of withdrawal/payment of the same, in view of the above
decision. Petitions thus made absolute and disposed off. No order as to costs.