Steel Authority Of India Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4612 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             W.P.(C) No. 1 of 2015

Steel Authority of India Limited, a Government Company within the
meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, Colliery Division, Chasnala,
having its office at Chasnala, PO&PS-Chasnala, District-Dhanbad
(Jharkhand), through its General Manager, Sri J. K. Bhowmik, resident of
Jitpur Colliery, PO-Jitpur, PS-Jorapokher, District-Dhanbad
                                                            ... Petitioner
                                 Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Transport Commissioner, having its
office at Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Bhawan, HEC Township, Dhurwa,
PO&PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
2. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, PO&PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad
3. District Transport Officer, Dhanbad, PO&PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad
                                                       ... Respondents
                                  with
                             W.P.(C) No. 90 of 2015

M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Government Company within the
meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, having its Registered Office
at Koyla Bhawan, PO-Koyla Nagar, PS-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad
through Sri Harendra Kishore, son of Leeladhar Sharma, Deputy General
Manager (Legal), BCCL, resident of Kusum Vihar Colony, PO-Koyla
Nagar, PS-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad                     ... Petitioner
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary-cum-Transport Commissioner,
Transport Department, FFP Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO&PS-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi
2. The District Transport Officer, Dhanbad, PO, PS & District-Dhanbad
                                                          ... Respondents
                                    -------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate [in W.P.(C) No. 1 of 2015] Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate [in W.P.(C) No. 90 of 2015] For the Respondents :

-------

Order No. 08/Dated: 06th December 2021

The communication dated 16th January 2014 issued by the Secretary-cum-Transport Commissioner, Department of Transport, Jharkhand is under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 90 of 2015 which is filed by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited.

2. It appears that the District Transport Officer, Dhanbad acted pursuant to the communication dated 16th January 2014 and issued letter dated 21st January 2014 to the General Managers of M/s BCCL and IISCO (SAIL) for registration of the unregistered vehicles.

3. The communication dated 28th August 2014 from the District Transport Officer, Dhanbad is under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 1 of 2015 which is filed by SAIL.

4. The main issue involved in these writ petitions is whether the heavy earth moving machineries, such as, dumpers, payloaders, shovels, drill master, bulldozers etc. are covered under the definition of "motor vehicles" as defined under section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and hence liable to tax.

5. The stand taken by M/s BCCL and Steel Authority of India Limited is that the heavy earth moving machineries (HEMM), such as, dumpers, payloaders, shovels, drill master, bulldozers etc. are not covered under the definition of "motor vehicles" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

6. The learned counsels for the petitioners have referred to the judgments in "Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa" (1974) 2 SCC 777, "M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Others" 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 133 and "Rajasthan SRTC v. Santosh and Others" (2013) 7 SCC 94 in support of the various contentions raised in these writ petitions.

7. In "Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area and Others v. State of Orissa and Another" (1996) 10 SCC 676, sections 2(b) and 3 of the Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1975 are interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said case, a plea was raised on behalf of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited that the dumpers, which run on tyres and are used within the mining areas and not on public roads, are not required to be registered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the heavy earth moving machineries like dumpers may not be used on public roads, nonetheless, are covered under the definition of motor vehicles and thus liable to be taxed.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"8. The dumpers in question which have been levied under the Taxation Act run on tyres as is apparent from the letter to the Automotive Research Association of India dated 25-1-1993, which

has been annexed as 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 highways are--

(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;

(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 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.

9. On these facts it is difficult for us to hold that the vehicles are not adapted or suitable or capable of being used on public roads, even though for most of the time they might actually be used within the mining areas on the roads prepared by the mining owners. Following the two earlier judgments of this Court in Central Coal Fields Ltd. and Union of India v. Chowgule & Co. we hold that the dumpers in question are motor vehicles and are taxable within the ambit of the Taxation Act."

9. A Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a similar view in "Western Coalfields Limited v. State of Maharastra and Another" (2016) 11 SCC 613. Referring to the decisions in "Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Others" (2005) 7 SCC 364 and "Rajasthan SRTC v. Santosh and Others" (2013) 7 SCC 94, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the excavators deployed by Western Coalfields Limited are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

10. It is admitted at Bar that a Division Bench of this Court dismissed LPA No. 574 of 2019 titled "Central Coalfields Limited v. The State of Jharkhand and Others", following the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases.

11. Therefore, we accept the stand of the State of Jharkhand that the heavy earth moving machineries, such as, dumpers, payloaders, shovels, drill master, bulldozers etc. are "motor vehicles" as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and, thus, mandatorily required to be registered and to pay tax.

12. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta and Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, the

learned counsels appearing for the petitioners finally refer to the communications dated 13th July 2020 and 09th March 2021 to submit that now since an advisory has been issued to the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport of all the States/UTs not to insist on registration of heavy earth moving machineries, such as, dumpers, payloaders, shovels, drill master, bulldozers etc. as these equipments are not covered under the definition of "motor vehicles" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a direction may be issued to the State of Jharkhand not to force M/s BCCL and SAIL to register all such equipments.

13. The advisory dated 09th March 2021 has been issued in connection to the previous directives dated 13th July 2020 issued from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India.

14. The said advisory reads as under:

"I am directed to refer letter received from Federation of Indian Mineral Industries dated 17.02.2021 (copy enclosed) and to say that this Ministry's advisory letter dated 13.07.2020 to all States mandates that since HEMM such as, dumpers, payloaders, shovels, drill master, bulldozers etc. are not covered under the definition of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hence these may not be insisted upon for registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."

15. As understood in the legal parlance an advisory does not attain the status of law. The issue whether the advisories dated 13 th July 2020 and 09th March 2021 which are issued from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways would be binding on the State Governments is not an issue before this Court. Admittedly there is no amendment in the definition of "motor vehicles" under section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On the contrary, the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court conclusively hold that the heavy earth moving machineries, such as, dumpers, payloaders, shovels, drill master, bulldozers etc. would fall within the definition of "motor vehicles" as defined under section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

16. The above being the factual scenario, this Court does not find any substance in these writ petitions and, accordingly, W.P.(C) No. 1 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No. 90 of 2015 are dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/-