JAISHREE THAKUR, J. - (1.) The above mentioned writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner to challenge the Notification dated 1.1.2015 inserted as Rule 2(p) in Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1951 and order dated 26.3.2015 passed by the District Transport Officer by which tax has been levied on equipment belonging to the petitioner and used for mining purposes by treating it to be a motor vehicle therefore attracting tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1951 and the rules framed thereunder. For convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5373/2015 are taken.
(2.) The petitioner has its lead, zinc mines in District Ra - jsamand wherein lead and zinc ore are excavated from ore de - posits available 400 -500 meters underneath the surface. The equipment described as MULTIMEC 6600 GB 821 was purchased from Finland to be used only in underground mines and not on road network. After the import of the said equipment an officer of the RTO department visited the mining area and found that the equipment in question was working in the underground mines without registration and payment of road tax. A Panchna - ma was prepared wherein it was observed that the equipment in question is in fact a motor vehicle and directed the petitioner - Company to appear and produce relevant documents. The peti - tioner -Company filed a short reply before the authorities con - cerned annexing copies of bills of entry, invoice, commissioning certificate, while stating therein that the said equipment is a mining equipment which falls within the definition of capital goods and is not a motor vehicle as contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act 1988 , Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1951 therefore no regis - tration was required and the imposition of road tax would not be justified. The impugned order dated 26.3.2015, relied upon a Notification dated 1.1.2015 as inserted as Rule 2(p) in Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1951, came to hold that the equip - ment in question was a Purely Off -Highway Vehicle which is a motor vehicle, either used as a construction equipment or de - signed and adapted for use in any enclosed premises, factory or mine, equipped to travel on its own source of power. Respondent no.2 imposed a tax of Rs. 10,19,278/ - treating the equipment to be a vehicle, which would require registration and road tax. Ag - grieved by the levy of tax and the impugned order dated 26.3.2015 treating the equipment in question to be purely off - Highway vehicle, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Mr. Dinesh Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner -Company contends that the equipment in question is not a motor vehicle as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1951. It is contended that by inserting sub -rule (p) in Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules 1951, the State cannot bring mining equipment meant to be used in enclosed premises or in mining areas only, under the tax ambit by incorporating the term "Purely Off - Highway Vehicle". It is further contended that power to levy tax on motor vehicle is conferred upon the State, vide Entry No. 57 by List II of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, upon vehicles which "are suitable for use on roads" (emphasis supplied) and by the notification dated 1.1.2015 the State Government has exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing tax upon "Purely Off -Highway Vehicle". Great emphasis has been laid by counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the equipment in question once introduced to the floor of the mines, is never brought out and used on the road nor has it ever been done. Relying on a judgment reported as State of Gujarat & ors vs. Kaushikbhai K. Patel & ors. (AIR 2000 SC 2175) it is argued that since the said equipment is not used on public road thus no tax is payable.;