G. Sivarajan, J.
1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The assessee is the revision petitioner. The assessment year is 1992-93. The petitioner was a dealer in automobiles and light commercial vehicles, etc. The assessing authority while completing the assessment for the year 1992-93 treated the sales effected by the petitioner as per Invoice Nos. 513, 517 and 518 as sales of chassis of motor vehicles only and levied tax at five per cent as per S.R.O. No. 369 of 1992. According to the petitioner the commodity covered by the aforesaid three invoices was light commercial vehicles taxable at four per cent only under the notification mentioned above. In appeal by the petitioner the first appellate authority accepted the contention of the petitioner and allowed the appeal. However, in appeal by the State before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, the order of the first appellate authority was set aside and the order of the assessing authority was restored. Hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the items sold by the petitioner as per Invoice Nos. 513, 517 and 518 (annexures D, E and F respectively) were motor vehicle engine and chassis. The general description of the goods is as follows :
'Eicher Mitsubishi Canter Model FE 444 with 92.5 HP direct injection 4 stroke engine along with 6 Nos. 7.50 x 16 x 12PR nylon tyres and tubes, one spare wheel with tyre and tube, tools and spares in the following configuration x 3760 mm Cowl & Chassis Crystal White Engine No. 120715556 Chassis No. 4FF20723111.'
The counsel submits that what is sold is not chassis alone but chassis and engine with cabin which cannot be characterised as chassis only. The counsel submits that what was sold is nothing but motor vehicle. The counsel also took us to entry 86 of the First Schedule to the Act as it stood at the relevant time and also the relevant items in Notification SRO No. 369 of 1992 and submitted that the items covered by the three bills are liable to be assessed as light commercial vehicle under item 17 of Notification SRO No. 369 of 1992.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that what was sold by the assessee was not a light commercial vehicle but only chassis and therefore the assessing authority and the Tribunal have rightly assessed the same at the rate of five per cent under the notification. The Government Pleader also relied on the judgment dated January 30, 2003 in T.R.C. No. 6 of 2003 Reported as Noor Metals v. State of Kerala [2004] 136 STC 417 (Ker) and also the decision of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. M. Madhvaraj [1993] 91 STC 572 in support of his contention.
4. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the orders of the three authorities. The assessing authority has taken the view that in all the sale bills except the three bills, for chassis the description of configuration was MM Cab and Hair Body--Bus NAC Crystal White and as per the three bills the items sold are chassis of vehicle. The first appellate authority has taken the view that all the sale bills contained engine No., chassis No. and the value of the vehicle is more than 3.3 lakhs but the value of chassis as per bill is shown as Rs. 44,044 only and that in all the three bills the petitioner has shown vehicle configuration such as engine No., chassis No., colour, etc. On that basis the first appellate authority has taken the view that what is sold is light commercial vehicle assessable at four per cent. However, the Tribunal did not agree with the view taken by the first appellate authority. According to the Tribunal, the purpose of issuing S.R.O. No. 369 of 1992 was to reduce the rate of tax on the sale of certain goods including motor vehicles ; therefore it is clear that the chassis made mention of in the notification is not a spare part as contended by the assessee ; in all the three invoices chassis was sold along with engines. Light motor vehicles built on chassis fetches a higher value and such built-up motor vehicles alone will come under entry 17 of the Second Schedule whereas chassis of motor vehicles sold along with engines will certainly come under entry 5 of the Second Schedule to the notification taxable at five per cent.
5. The facts are not in dispute. What the assessee had sold is chassis with engine. So the only question for consideration is as to whether chassis with engine can be treated as chassis falling under item 5 or a light commercial vehicle falling under item 17 of the Second Schedule to the notification. In order to decide this issue, it is necessary to refer to entry 86 of the First Schedule to the Act as it stood during the assessment year and the relevant entries in the Notification S.R.O. No. 369 of 1992. Entry 86 of the First Schedule as it stood at the relevant time reads as follows :
'86. Motor vehicles, chassis of motor vehicles, motor cycles, motor cycle combinations, motor scooter, mopeds, motorettes, three wheelers, motor vessels, motor engines, trailers, motor bodies built on chassis of motor vehicles, bodies built on motor vessels or engines and spare parts and accessories thereof.'
The rate of tax on the sale of all or any of these items is 15 per cent as per the entry. By S.R.O. No. 369 of 1992 the State Government in public interest made a reduction in the rate of tax payable under the Act on the sale of goods mentioned in column (2) of the Second Schedule to the rate mentioned against each of the items in column (3) thereof. Item Nos. 5, 6, 17 and 18 of the Second Schedule with Scheduled rate and the reduced rates are as follows :
Sl.
Description of goods
Reduced rate of tax
No.
From
To
(1)
(2)
(3)
5.
Chassis of motor vehicles other than trucks andbuses
15%
5%
6.
Chassis of trucks and buses
15%
4%
17.
Motor vehicles of the category of lightcommercial vehicles other than motor car, motor taxi cabs, three wheelers,jeeps, truckers and all other petrol driven vehicles.
15%
4%
18.
Motor cars, motor taxi cabs, three wheelers,jeeps, truckers and all other petrol driven vehicles.
15%
5%
Under entry No. 86 of the First Schedule motor vehicles, chassis of motor vehicles, motor engines, motor bodies built on chassis of motor vehicles, spare parts and accessories thereof for which the rate of tax is fixed at 15 per cent. Under Notification S.R.O. No. 369 of 1992 item No. 5 deals with chassis of motor vehicles other than trucks and buses for which the reduced rate of tax is five per cent. Under item No. 6 for chassis of trucks and buses the reduced rate of tax is four per cent. Under item No. 17 motor vehicles of the category of light commercial vehicles other than motor car, motor taxi cabs, three wheelers, jeeps, truckers and all other petrol driven vehicles the reduced rate of tax is four per cent. The petitioner claims that items sold by it come under the category of light commercial vehicles whereas according to the department it will fall under item No. 5, viz., chassis of motor vehicles other than trucks and buses.
6. In view of the rival contentions it is necessary to understand the meaning of the word 'motor vehicle' used in the Act. There is no definition of 'motor vehicle' in the Act. However, there is a definition of 'vehicle' in Section 2(xxviii) which reads 'vehicle' 'includes every wheeled conveyance used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers'. This meaning has to be given to the word 'vehicle' wherever it occurs in the Act unless the context otherwise requires. Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines a 'motor vehicle' as 'any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for 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 of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimetres.'
7. The chassis with engine will come within the definition of 'motor vehicle'' in the Motor Vehicles Act. However, as held by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion-I) v. Swaraj Mazda Ltd. [2001] 121 STC 255 ; (2001) 1 KLT SN 59 (Case No. 69) the meaning given to 'motor vehicles' in the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be given to the said expression occurring in the Sales Tax Act or in the notification issued thereunder. In the absence of a definition of the words 'motor vehicle' in the Sales Tax Act or in the notification issued thereunder the meaning of the same as understood by the trade and the persons who deal with the same has to be given. In other words, meaning of the words 'motor vehicles' understood in common parlance has to be applied. Certainly the dictionary meaning can also be looked into.
8. Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary, Second Edition, gives the meaning of the word 'chassis' as 'the under frame-work of a motor vehicle including the wheels and engine parts'. The word 'vehicle' means 'any means of carrying, conveying or communicating' ; another meaning is 'any device on wheels or runners for conveying persons or objects, as a cart, sled, automobile, etc'. The meaning of the words 'motor vehicle' as per Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary is 'a piece of mechanised equipment' and the term 'vehicle' as 'an agent of transmission', 'a means of carrying or transporting something'. The Privy Council in Falkiner v. Whitton 1917 AC 106 in the context of an Australian legislation levying customs duty observed thus :
'One of the meanings of the French word chassis is a 'frame' and one finds the expression 'chassis de fenetre' (a 'window frame'); and the evidence in this case establishes that the word 'chassis' when applied to a motor car or motor waggon, includes everything but the body placed upon this frame. The nature of the body so imposed may in many cases determine the character of the completed vehicle, though, of course, in most cases the frame of a waggon or lorry is stronger and the engines more powerful, owing to the greater load to be carried, than in the case of an ordinary motor car designed to carry four or five passengers.'
The Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pritam Singh [1968] 22 STC 414 considered the question whether the body of the motor vehicle is a component part of it and observed as follows :
'A motor vehicle is a carriage propelled by a motor. It is a vehicle intended ordinarily for conveying passengers or goods. Now, a component part of an article is one of the parts constituting it. It is an integral part necessary to the constitution of the whole article. Without it, it would not be possible to conceive of the entire article as a whole. Can it be said that the body of a motor vehicle is a necessary part of the motor vehicle Learned counsel for the respondent seeks to persuade us that the motor vehicle is a complete unit when it consists of a motor and chassis on wheels and that the body mounted on the chassis is not a necessary part of the motor vehicle. We are unable to accept the contention. To function as a conveyance, the motor vehicle must be capable of accommodating the passengers or carrying the goods intended to be conveyed. If it functions as a stage carriage, it must have a body designed to accommodate passengers. If it is intended to function as a carrier of goods, it must be designed to carry goods. Unless it is so designed, it is incapable of ordinarily discharging the purpose for which it is intended. There can be no dispute that in order to serve that purpose effectively it is necessary for a motor vehicle to have a body mounted on it. The design of that body will vary according to whether the motor vehicle is intended to convey passengers or goods. But a body there must be, and unless there is a body, it is not possible to say that a motor vehicle as understood in the popular or commercial sense has come into being. A motor and chassis on wheels is an incomplete motor vehicle. It cannot be employed for the purpose for which motor vehicles are normally intended. It needs something more to complete it, and that something is an appropriate body mounted and fitted on the chassis.'
Thus both from the dictionary meaning and from the decided cases the words 'motor vehicle' carry the meaning 'an agent of transportation' which is imparted by a motor and it is only when a body is built on the chassis that it becomes a motor vehicle.
9. The question whether 'truck-plus-chassis' frame is motor vehicle or not came up for consideration before the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. M. Madhvaraj [1993] 91 STC 572. In that case the assessee purchased 'truck-plus-chassis' frames on payment of tax, bodies built on them and the vehicles used. The assessee thereafter sold the same. The assessee contended that if the TPC frames were not held to be motor vehicles, the subsequent sales of motor vehicles with bodies built on the TPC frame should be bifurcated into sale of TPC frames and bodies of motor vehicles, so that, to the extent of the value of TPC frames, tax may not be levied. The assessees had produced the photo of a 'chassis frame' and the photo of truck plus chassis-frame. According to the assessees they have purchased initially what is described as truck plus chassis-frame and this truck plus chassis-frame is nothing but a motor vehicle falling under entry 70 of the Second Schedule to the Act, as it then stood, The High Court noted that the picture of the truck plus chassis-frame shows that there is a chassis-frame with the wheels and engine attached ; there is also a wind shield in the front to cover the driver. However, no plank or platform is fitted on the chassis-frame capable of carrying any goods or passengers. The court also noted the contention of the assessee that this truck plus chassis-frame is registered as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and falls within the definition of a 'motor vehicle' under the said Act. The further contention that the persons conversant with the subject-matter treat this as a motor vehicle and not merely as a chassis was also noted. Entry 70 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is 'motor vehicles including motor cars, motor taxi cabs, ...........motor omnibuses, motor vans and motor lorries'. Entry 71A is 'bodies built on motor vehicle chassis' and entry 73 is 'articles--used generally as parts and accessories of motor vehicles'. The High Court after referring to the dictionary meaning of the words 'chassis', 'vehicle' and 'motor vehicle' and the decision of the Privy Council and other decisions of various High Courts held as follows :
'A vehicle is a medium ; it is to convey something else, other than itself exclusively. Only because chassis-frame fitted with an engine is capable of movement, by the force of motor, it cannot be called a vehicle ; this equipment can move ; it is meant to transport itself and it is not meant to be an agent of transmission or transporting at all ; no principal object is carried in it ; it is not used as a means to carry anything else. That equipment requires to be further equipped with a body, at least, in the nature of a plank fitted on the chassis-frame, so that it can be used as a means of transporting something ; until this is done, the equipment can be at the most called an incomplete motor vehicle, for the sake of convenience................Having regard to the entries in several Schedules to the Act we are of the view that the term 'chassis of motor vehicle' has to be understood so as to include TPC frames. TPC frames are not meant to convey men or carry goods ; they are not used as means of transport and, therefore, they cannot be considered as 'motor vehicles'.'
10. The facts of the present case are on all fours of the case considered by the Karnataka High Court in the above case. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court mentioned above which held that chassis necessarily includes the engine and that unless body is built on the chassis it cannot be understood as a motor vehicle for the purpose of levy of sales tax under the Act. We have also held in our judgment dated January 30, 2003 in TRC No. 6 of 2003 Reported as Noor Metals v. State of Kerala [2004] 136 STC 417 that a chassis without a body built on it cannot be called a motor vehicle and that a dealer who purchases chassis after paying the tax and builds body on the chassis it becomes a motor vehicle which is liable to tax as a motor vehicle notwithstanding the fact that the chassis and the body had suffered tax separately. In fact in the provisions of the present entry 94 of the First Schedule dealing with motor vehicles an explanation was added as per which where a tax has been levied on chassis of motor vehicle or on body built on such chassis within the State, the tax payable on the motor vehicle produced out of such chassis shall be reduced by the amount of tax paid on such chassis or body built on such chassis. However, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of this since the said explanation was inserted long after the transaction with which we are concerned.
For all these reasons we do not find any merit in this tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed.