Ultratech Cement Limited vs The State Of Gujarat

2026 INSC 43 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3352-3353 OF 2017

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3357 OF 2017 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3358 OF 2017

JUDGMENT

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. Heard Shri P. Chidambaram, senior counsel appearing for

the appellant-Ultratech Cement Ltd. in Civil Appeal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by geeta ahuja Date: 2026.01.09 Nos.3352-3353/2017 and Shri Nakul Dewan, senior counsel 16:18:47 IST Reason:

appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.3357 and

1 3358/2017. Shri K. Parameshwar, senior counsel has been

heard in opposition on behalf of respondent-State of Gujarat.

2. All the aforesaid four civil appeals are based on similar facts

and raises a common question of law, namely; whether Heavy

Earth Moving Machinery or special services vehicles or any

construction equipment vehicles such as Dumpers, Loaders,

Excavators, Surface Miners, Dozers, Drills, Rock Breakers

etc. are “motor vehicles” within the ambit of Section 2 (28) of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 and are liable to be taxed under

the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 19582.

3. The Civil Appeal Nos.3352-3353/2017 are the leading

appeals and, therefore, the necessary facts in respect of those

appeals only are being narrated for the sake of convenience.

4. The appellant-Ultratech Cement Ltd. is a public limited

company engaged in manufacturing and marketing of clinker

and cement products. It has two cement plants known as

Gujarat Cement Works and Narmada Cement Works in

Gujarat. In connection with the manufacturing work at the

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Gujarat Tax Act’ 2 above two plants, it uses various Heavy Earth Moving

Machinery/construction equipment or special services

vehicle.

5. In Civil Appeal Nos.3352-3353/2017, the vehicles used are

predominantly Dumpers and Loaders. In Civil Appeal

No.3357/2017, the vehicles are Excavators and Surface

Miners whereas in Civil Appeal No.3358/2017, the vehicles

used are Dozers, Drillers, Rock Breakers, Excavators and

Surface Miners.

6. The Regional Transport Officer, Bhuj, on 04.06.1996 issued

a letter acknowledging that the Dumpers used by the

appellants within the private premises do not require

registration under the Act. However, later on the Transport

Commissioner published a press advertisement in Gujarati

Daily ‘Sandesh’ on 20.11.1999, directing registration of all

special service vehicles including Dumpers as is mandated

by Section 39 of the Act and that the appellants are required

to pay road tax on those vehicles under the Gujarat Tax Act.

7. Pursuant thereto, in January 2000, the Regional Transport

Officer even conducted an inspection of the vehicles used by

3 the appellant and directed the appellant to get them

registered and pay tax under the Gujarat Tax Act.

8. The appellant protested against it and replied to the

Transport Commissioner on 02.02.2000 that these vehicles

were not strictly “motor vehicles” as defined under Section 2

(28) of the Act and, therefore, they are neither required to be

registered nor chargeable to tax under the Gujarat Tax Act.

The Transport Commissioner refused to accept the plea

taken by the appellant and insisted for the registration of

vehicles and payment of road tax.

9. It may be worth noting that the vehicles so used by the

appellants were not meant to be used “on-road”. They were

transported to the work premises of the appellant in a

dismantled condition on trailers and were confined to use

within the factory/enclosed premises.

10. M/s Bharat Earth Movers Limited, the

manufacturers/suppliers of the said vehicles, certified by

their letter dated 23.03.2000 that they have been

manufacturing and supplying heavy duty Dumpers amongst

other range of products for operating in mining/industrial

4 off-road activities. These products/vehicles that are

manufactured and supplied by them are designed as vehicles

of a special type to be adopted for use only in mining and

industrial off-road operations and are not meant for use on-

road. These products/vehicles are transported from their

place on trailers to the destination and since these are meant

for off-road operations, they do not issue any road worthiness

certificate for the above products/vehicles.

11. A similar certificate was issued by M/s Hindustan Motors

Limited on 17.03.2000 regarding the various models of

Dumpers manufactured and supplied by them.

12. Even M/s Automotive Research Association of India also

certified on 04.06.2004 that such Heavy Earth Moving

Machineries are meant for off-road use and not on-road.

These are carried from one location to another in the knocked

down condition only on trailers or trucks.

13. These certificates were placed on record by the appellant-

Ultratech Cement Ltd. and were not controverted by the

respondent-State of Gujarat.

5

14. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer on 16.01.2002

again informed the appellant that the above

vehicles/equipment used by it fall within the definition of

“motor vehicles” and are liable for registration and payment

of road tax. Subsequently, on 09.11.2006, the Regional

Transport Officer issued a show cause notice demanding a

sum of Rs.59,39,401/- towards registration fee, tax, arrears

of tax along with 2 per cent interest and 25 per cent penalty

with effect from the year 1999 when aforesaid

vehicles/equipment were purchased by the appellant. The

appellant, after multiple correspondence, were pressurized to

get the said vehicles/equipment registered and to deposit a

sum of Rs. 1.36 crores. The appellant got the vehicles

registered and deposited Rs. 88.45 lakhs under protest.

15. In the above scenario, when the show cause notice was

issued, the appellant approached the High Court of Gujarat

for the quashing of aforesaid show cause notice dated

09.11.2006 and for the refund of the amount deposited by

them. The High Court dismissed the petition by common

judgment and order dated 15.07.2011 holding that the

6 vehicles/equipment used by the appellants particularly

Dumpers were “motor vehicles” under the Act and are

chargeable to tax.

16. It is against the aforesaid judgment and order of the High

Court dated 15.07.2011 that the appellant is in appeal before

this Court. The appellants in other connected appeals are

also before this Court in a similar fashion. As said earlier, all

these appeals give rise to a common question of law as

framed previously hereinabove, therefore, we are dealing with

all of them together on the basis of the facts contained in Civil

Appeal Nos. 3352-3353/2017.

17. The primary submission on behalf of the appellants is that

Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution

of India permits taxation only of vehicles “suitable for use on

roads”, therefore, vehicles not used in public places or public

roads or not suitable for use on roads are outside the purview

of the definition of “motor vehicles” and are not chargeable to

road tax. Secondly, it has been submitted that the

manufacturer’s specifications and the certificates of the

experts on record clearly demonstrate that the vehicles in

7 question are off-road vehicles. The certificates and

contentions have not been refuted by the State and the Court

has simply ignored them by saying that the expert certificates

and manufacturer’s specifications are not material.

18. It has also been contended that the Ministry of Road

Transport and Highways (MoRTH) vide circular dated

13.07.2020 expressly states that such vehicles as used by

the appellants are “off-road equipment” and they do not

qualify to be “motor vehicles” which may require registration.

19. Moreover, Bolani Ores Ltd. vs. State of Orissa3, squarely

answers the question raised in these appeals wherein it has

been held that the phrase “adapted for use upon roads”

means vehicles which are suitable for plying on the roads and

as such, vehicles and equipment not meant to be used on-

roads are beyond taxation.

20. The aforesaid decision has been followed in Tarachand

Logistic Solutions Limited vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

& Ors.4, wherein it has been held that vehicles operating

3 (1974) 2 SCC 777 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1851 8 within closed premises and vehicles which do not derive

benefit from public road infrastructure, are not taxable.

Merely because the vehicles in question have been registered

under the Act, the appellants are not estopped from

challenging its liability to pay road tax on the said vehicle.

21. The case laws relied upon by the State or the High Court in

holding otherwise are distinguishable and are not applicable.

22. In response to the arguments advanced on behalf of

appellants as aforesaid, Shri K. Parameshwar, senior counsel

appearing for the State of Gujarat submits that Section 3 (1)

of the Gujarat Tax Act is the charging provision and it uses

the word “all motor vehicles” and, therefore, any vehicle

which falls within the ambit of “motor vehicles”, whether

meant for on-road or off-road use, is subject to payment of

road tax. No distinction can be made between the vehicles on

the basis of their use. The words “public place” or “public

road” have not been used in Section 3 of the Gujarat Tax Act

and are of no relevance.

23. The circular of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

(MoRTH) dated 13.07.2020 has not been issued in exercise of

9 any rule making power under the Act. It is not relevant and

is not binding as it cannot override the express provision of

the statute. Moreover, the said circular operates

prospectively and would not apply to the vehicles which have

been purchased earlier.

24. The decision of Tarachand Logistic (supra) relied upon on

behalf of appellants is of no help, rather, the decisions

rendered by this Court in Chief General Manager,

Jagannath Area & Ors. vs. State of Orissa & Anr.5 and

State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S.

Mahamandal6 & Ors., would prevail.

25. Before embarking upon the question of law i.e., whether

heavy earth moving machinery or special service vehicle or

any construction equipment vehicles are “motor vehicles”

within the ambit of Section 2 (28) of the Act and are

chargeable to tax under the Gujarat Tax Act, it would be

necessary for us to refer to certain provisions of the

Constitution of India, then to the charging Section of the

5 (1996) 10 SCC 676 6 (2004) 5 SCC 155 10 Gujarat Tax Act and then the definition of the “motor vehicle”

as contained in the Act itself.

26. Article 265 of the Constitution of India clearly provides that

tax shall not be levied or collected except by the authority of

law. If we read the above Article in consonance with Entry 57

of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, it would

be evident that taxes can be imposed on vehicles which

impliedly include “motor vehicle” suitable for use on roads.

27. Entry 57 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution

reads as under:

“57. Taxes on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads, including tram-cars subject to the provisions of Entry 35 of List III.”

28. Upon a conjoint reading of Article 265 and Entry 57 of List II

of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, it is evident that

the State is competent to levy and collect tax on vehicles i.e.,

motor vehicles if they are suitable for use on roads.

29. Section 3 of the Gujarat Tax Act provides for levying tax on

motor vehicles. The relevant part of it stipulates as under:

“ 3. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, on and from the 1st day of April 1958, there shall be levied and collected on all motor vehicles used 11 or kept for use in the State, a tax at the rates fixed by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, but not exceeding the maximum rates specified in the First, Second and Third Schedules:

Provided that in the case of any motor vehicle (irrespective of whether they are specified in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule or Third Schedule kept by a dealer in, or manufacturer of, such vehicles, for the purpose of trade, there shall be levied and collected annually such amount of tax not exceeding Rs.5000 as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify on those motor vehicles only which are permitted to be used on the roads in the manner prescribed by rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:……………………………………………………..”

30. The aforesaid charging Section contemplates to levy and

collect tax on all motor vehicles either used or kept for use in

the State. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would

reveal that tax can be levied and collected from all motor

vehicles irrespective of the fact as to whether they are

actually used or kept for use.

31. It may be pertinent to note that Entry 57 of List II of the

Seventh Schedule of the Constitution permits imposition of

tax on vehicles suitable for use on roads. Section 3 of the

Gujarat Tax Act authorizes levy and collection of tax on all

motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State without

12 specifying whether suitable for use on roads or not. It is on

account of the conspicuous absence of the qualification

“suitable for use on roads” in the Gujarat Tax Act that the

vehicles used by the appellants which are said to be off-road

vehicles are sought to be taxed. The Gujarat Tax Act cannot

travel beyond Entry 57 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the

Constitution of India so as to tax vehicles which are not

suitable for being used on roads.

32. Now, the basic issue is: what is meant by “motor vehicle” or

what are “motor vehicles”.

33. The phrase “motor vehicle” has not been defined under the

Gujarat Tax Act rather sub-Section (10) of Section 2 of the

said Act provides that words and expressions not defined

under the said Act shall have the same meaning as assigned

to them under the Act.

34. Section 2 (10) is reproduced herein below:

“2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-

……………………………………………………………..

(10) other words and expressions used, but not defined, in this Act, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Motor Vehicles, 1988 or the rules made thereunder.” 13

35. In view of the above provision of Section 2 (10) of the Act as

motor vehicle has not been defined under the Gujarat Tax

Act, it has to be assigned the same meaning as is contained

in the Act.

36. The Act defines “motor vehicle” under Section 2 (28) of the

Act. It reads as under:

“2. Definitions-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-

……………………………………………………………..

(28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for the use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity or not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimeters;”

37. A simple and plain reading of the aforesaid provision would

reveal that it is in two parts. The first part is inclusive and

the second part is exclusive. The first part, in short, provides

that a motor vehicle or a vehicle means any mechanically

propelled vehicle which is adapted for use upon roads and

14 includes the chassis to which a body has not been attached

and a trailer. So, the above part of the definition of motor

vehicle is inclusive in nature. The second part provides for

the exclusion of certain vehicles from the definition of the

motor vehicle. It provides that motor vehicle does not include

a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special

type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other

enclosed premises. It means that the legislature has

consciously provided for the exclusion of the vehicles of the

special kind which have been adapted for use only in a

factory or any other enclosed premises from the definition of

motor vehicle. In other words, though the term motor vehicle

is wide enough but it expressly excludes some of the motor

vehicles which are of special type and have been adapted for

use only in factory or in any other enclosed premises from its

ambit.

38. The vehicles in question used by the appellant are all in the

nature of special vehicles as they are basically construction

equipment vehicles which have been made suitable for use

only in a factory and an enclosed premises rather than for

15 use on roads. These vehicles may be capable of being used

on road but essentially, they are meant to be used as a

special vehicle inside the enclosed premises or in the factory

premises alone and not outside on the road. Even for

reaching the factory premises, or the so-called enclosed

premises they do not ply on road and are taken on tractors

and trailers from the place of their manufacturing to the

place of their deployment. The various certificates of the

manufacturers and suppliers as well as those issued by the

Automotive Research Association of India amply demonstrate

that the aforesaid vehicles used by the appellant are special

type of vehicles meant for use only within the factory

premises or the enclosed premise. They are all off-road

vehicles that do not ordinarily ply on roads. Since, they do

not run on the roads, the manufacturers and suppliers do

not even issue any certificate of road worthiness in respect of

these vehicles. In short, the vehicles used by the appellants

are special type of vehicles meant to be used as construction

equipment vehicle within the enclosed premises and as such

ex-facie stands excluded from the definition of the motor

16 vehicle as contained in Section 2 (28) of the Act, more

particularly by virtue of the second part of the definition.

39. In view of the above, we can safely conclude that though the

vehicles used by the appellant are “motor vehicles” within the

first part of the definition under Section 2 (28) of the Act but

they stand excluded from the definition of “motor vehicles”

on account of their very nature of use and the place of the

use by virtue of the second part of the definition.

40. There is another reason for excluding the above vehicles used

by the appellant from the ambit of the motor vehicles. The

Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 framed under the Act vide

Rule 2 (cab) defines “construction equipment vehicle” to

mean rubber tyred, rubber padded or steel drum wheel

mounted, self-propelled, excavator, loader, backhoe,

compactor roller, dumper, motor grader, mobile crane, dozer,

fork lift truck, self-loaded concrete mixture or any other

construction vehicle or combination thereof designed for off-

highway operations in mining, industrial undertaking,

irrigation and general construction, modified and

17 manufactured with “on or off” or “on and off” highway

capabilities.

41. In the light of the aforesaid definition, the vehicles used by

the appellant though manufactured or modified for “on or off”

or “on and off” highway capabilities are essentially

construction equipment vehicles of special kind and are not

simplicitor motor vehicles falling within the ambit of Section

2 (28) of the Act. They as such are special type of vehicles

falling in the category of “construction equipment vehicles”.

42. The charging Section i.e., Section 3 (1) of the Gujarat Tax Act

itself provides that tax on all motor vehicles shall be levied

and collected at the rate fixed by the State Government but

not exceeding the maximum rate specified in the first, second

and third Schedule of the Act. If we go to the first schedule

to the Gujarat Tax Act, we find that against each type of

motor vehicles maximum annual rate of tax has been

specified. However, under Item (ii) of Item (f) under Item VI of

the First Schedule, though we find mention of motor vehicles

exceeding particular specification and/or any construction

equipment vehicles but there is no corresponding rate of tax.

18 If the aforesaid entry in the Schedule I is read, it would

demonstrate that the Schedule prescribes no rate of tax on

construction equipment vehicles i.e., the vehicles as used by

the appellant. Therefore, it can again be concluded that the

vehicles used by the appellants are special type of vehicles

which stand excluded from the definition of motor vehicles

and, at the same time, being construction equipment

vehicles, are not chargeable to tax. The Gujarat Tax Act itself

does not provide for any rate of tax for collection of any tax

from such vehicles.

43. It is for the above reason that the Ministry of Road Transport

and Highways (MoRTH) had issued circular dated

13.07.2020 to clarify that vehicles as used by the appellants

i.e., vehicles of special type or those used in construction

activity, if are not being run on roads, do not qualify to be

motor vehicles and regular registration. The said circular

may not override the express provisions of law but

nonetheless, is binding upon the departmental authorities as

has been held in K.P. Varghese vs. ITO7 .

7 (1981) 4 SCC 173 19

44. On a composite reading of Section 3 of the Gujarat Tax Act,

the definition of motor vehicles under Section 2 (28) of the

Act, the definition of construction equipment vehicles

contained in Rule 2 (cab) of the Rules and Schedule I of the

Gujarat Tax Act, it is crystal clear that the vehicles of the kind

used by the appellant which are special vehicles i.e.,

construction equipment vehicles may be suitable for plying

upon roads are essentially meant to be used in a factory or

an enclosed premises and as such are not chargeable to tax

under the Gujarat Tax Act. Even otherwise in view of the

language employed in Entry 57 of List II of Seventh Schedule

of the Constitution of India, no authority is authorized to levy

or collect tax on vehicles which are not suitable for use on

roads and have been designed for off-road use in factory or

enclosed premises.

45. The view taken by us above finds full support from the three-

Judge Bench decision of this Court Bolani Ores Ltd. vs.

State of Orissa (supra). In the said case this Court was

dealing with the definition of the motor vehicle as it existed

in the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 in reference to Bihar and

20 Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,1930. The “motor vehicle”

was defined in Section 2(18) of the aforesaid Act which used

the phrase “adapted for use upon roads”. In the light of the

said definition, this Court considered whether dumpers,

rockers and tractairs are taxable under the Bihar and Orissa

Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930. This Court while

considering the meaning of the words “adapted for use”

observed that they must be construed as “suitable for use or

in other words fit for use on road”. This connotation was

based upon Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the

Constitution. It was held that in view of Entry 57 of List II of

the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the power to

impose tax on motor vehicles is regulatory and compensatory

in nature and that the said power can be exercised to impose

taxes on motor vehicles which use the roads in the State. This

Court further observed that the vehicles such as dumpers,

rockers and tractairs are though suitable for use on roads

but in the light of the pleadings as they were used only within

the enclosed premises specifically for the industrial purpose,

they cannot be held liable for taxation. It was categorically

21 held that if a vehicle does not use the public roads, it cannot

be taxed. It was also observed that if a vehicle merely moves

from one place to another, it need not necessarily be a motor

vehicle. It also holds that vehicles though registered under

the Act as motor vehicles need not be subjected to tax if

otherwise those vehicles do not ply on roads.

46. The vehicles used by the appellant undeniably are not used

on roads and are not even kept for use on roads.

47. However, in the case of Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. vs.

State of Karnataka & Ors.8 a three-Judge Bench of this

Court without over ruling Bolani Ores Ltd. (supra) held that

tractor-trailers used for transporting goods constitute a

different category of “goods carriage” which requires permit

under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, in the

absence of such a permit they are liable to tax under Section

3(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957.

48. The aforesaid decision in the case of Natwar Parikh & Co.

Ltd. (supra) has simply held that the “goods carriage”

requires a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore,

8 (2005) 7 SCC 364 22 they are “motor vehicles”. However, it failed to consider

whether the vehicles in question which are allegedly special

type vehicles or construction equipment vehicles specially

designed to be used in factory premises or in the enclosed

premises and not on the public roads would be covered by

motor vehicles. Therefore, the above decision has no

application to the facts and circumstances of the present

case.

49. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Western Coalfields

Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.9 simply referring

to the earlier decisions of this Court in Natwar Parikh &

Co. Ltd. (supra) held that excavators fall within the meaning

of the definition of “motor vehicles” as contained in Section 2

(28) of the Act and therefore, would be liable for registration

and payment of taxes.

50. Since, the decision in the case of Western Coalfields

Limited (supra) is based upon Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd.

(supra) in holding that excavators fall within the meaning of

definition of “motor vehicles” as contained in Section 2 (28) 9 (2016) 11 SCC 613 23 of the Act and as such would be liable for registration and

payment of tax but without going into the aspect whether

such vehicles stands excluded from the definition of “motor

vehicles” by virtue of second part of the definition contained

under Section 2 (28) of the Act, it is of no use in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

51. The decisions to the contrary cited at the Bar starting from

Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala &

Ors.10, Union of India and Ors. vs. Chowgule and Co. Pvt.

Ltd. & Ors.11, M/s Central Coal Fields Ltd. vs. State of

Orissa & Ors.12, Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area

& Ors. (supra), Bose Abraham vs. State of Kerala &

Anr.13, State of Gujarat & Ors. (supra) are all decisions of

the different Division Benches of this Court. No doubt, they

hold that vehicles used or kept for use on the public roads of

the State are exigible to tax, and if they are not so used they

can claim exemption but all these decisions fail to take into

account the specific exclusion as contained in the second

10 (1980) 3 SCC 619 11 1992 Supp (3) SCC 141 12 1992 Supp (3) SCC 133 13 (2001) 3 SCC 157 24 part of Section 2 (28) of the Act which defines “motor

vehicles”. As stated earlier, the vehicles or the construction

equipment vehicles used by the appellants are “motor

vehicles” within the first part of the definition as contained in

Section 2 (28) but they stand excluded by virtue of the second

part of the said definition. This aspect of the matter has not

been specifically considered by any of the above decisions. Moreover, all these decisions simply brushes aside Bolani

Ores Ltd. (supra) without actually ruling it out on the ground

that it relates to “motor vehicles” as defined under the old Act

without realising that there was no material change between

the definition of “motor vehicles” in the old or present Act.

52. If the principle laid down by the above decisions that vehicles

either used or kept for use in the State irrespective of whether

they are suitable for plying on roads or not or whether they

are special type of vehicles meant to be used only in enclosed

premises are subjected to tax is accepted, it will lead to an

anomaly. It may be noted that aircrafts specially those

belonging to Air Force are capable of landing on the highways

and they can after taxing on the highway can also take-off

25 from there, and as such would be vehicles suitable for use on

roads which will make them motor vehicles liable for

registration under the Act and payment of road tax within the

ambit of various State Acts. Similar would be the case with

the tanks belonging to Army inasmuch as they are also

suitable to ply on roads if necessary and keeping them for

use within any State would attract their registration as motor

vehicles liable to payment of tax. This cannot be the intention

of the legislature in prescribing the definition of the motor

vehicles under the Act and to impose tax thereupon. In this

view of the matter, the principle laid down by the above

decisions cannot be accepted and applied in an absolute form

on all motor vehicles ignoring the distinction between normal

motor vehicles and the motor vehicles of special kind such as

heavy construction equipment or special type of vehicles

which are meant to be used within a specified area and not

on public roads.

53. One another decision in the case of Chairman, Rajasthan

State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Santosh &

26 Ors.14 was cited. The said decision deals with the motorised

cart “Jugaad” and it was held that it is a “motor vehicle”

within the definition of Section 2 (28) of the Act and is exigible

to road tax. The facts of the said case were quite distinct from

the present case at hand in as much as in the said case the

Court was only called upon to rule as to whether motorised

cart “Jugaad” is a motor vehicle or not. The Court had not

embarked upon to consider whether by virtue of its use it

would stand excluded from the definition of the “motor

vehicle”. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is also of no use in

the present case.

54. Contrary to the above, this Court recently in Tarachand

Logistic Solutions Limited (supra) was called upon to

decide whether the premises of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,

Andhra Pradesh, a corporate entity of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam

Limited (‘RINL’) where the alleged special type vehicles were

exclusively used constitute a “public place”. This Court inter

alia observed that if a motor vehicle is not used in a public

place or is not kept for use in a public place and the person

14 (2013) 7 SCC 94 27 concerned is not deriving any benefit from the public

infrastructure, he should not be burdened with the motor

vehicle tax.

55. In view of the aforesaid discussion specially considering the

pleadings and the material on record, we are of the conclusive

opinion that the vehicles used by the appellants are vehicles

of special types, precisely construction equipment vehicles

which are suitable and are meant for use for operation and

use within the industrial area/factory premises/ defined

enclosed premises and are not meant for use on roads or

public roads. They are off-road equipments and as such

stand excluded not only from the purview of the “motor

vehicle” as defined under Section 2 (28) of the Act but also

from tax as Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the

Constitution only authorizes taxation of vehicles suitable for

use on roads only. They are not even chargeable to road tax

in view of Schedule I to Section 3 (1) of the Gujarat Tax Act

which do not prescribes any tax for such kind of vehicles i.e.,

construction equipment vehicles. However, if any such kind

of vehicles are found using roads, they would not be free from

28 the rigors of Section 2 (28) of the Act and Section 3 of the

Gujarat Tax Act and may also be subject to proceedings for

seizure and penalty in accordance with the law.

56. Accordingly, the impugned judgments and orders dated

15.07.2011 and 19.12.2012 passed by the High Court of

Gujarat are set aside and the appeals are allowed with no

order as to cost.

.............……………………………….. J.

(PANKAJ MITHAL)

.............……………………………….. J.

(PRASANNA B. VARALE) NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 08, 2026.

29