JUDGMENT -Dr. B.P. SARAF, J.:-The petitioner, Forbes Forbes Campbel Company Limited, is engaged in the business of acting as agents for an American Shipping Company ("American Company"). As agent of the said company, it has to carry out the work of unloading goods from vessels of the said American Company which arrive at Bombay Port. The petitioner is also required to transport goods from the ships to the taking area within the Port Trust area at Bombay Port. For the purpose of moving the imported cargo, the petitioner had imported 30 trailers in the year 1973 and 28 trailers in the year 1976. The said trailers were trailers of a specific type so constructed that a part of it is superimposed on and a part of its weight is borne by the driving vehicle. These trailors in commercial parlance are called "semi trailers". The above trailers were imported by the petitioner under an import licence from the Government of India subject to the following conditions : (a) The said semi-trailers would be used only within the Dock area. (b) They would not be sold to any other party without the permission of the Government of India; (c) They would be re-exported after use, in a year. (d) No foreign exchange would be released by Government of India for this purpose. The trailers imported by the petitioner termed as "Commercial trailers" have only four rear wheels on one side and an arrangement on the other side to keep the said trailer or a semi-trailer in horigental position by resting it on a stand. The uncontroverted position is that said trailers do not have any source of power and are not moveable except when they are attached to a tractor especially made for the purpose which is termed as "articulated vehicle". The petitioner did not acquire any tractor of its own, as according to it, the said trailers are used occasionally merely to serve as a platform for the carriage of the containers. The petitioners arranged tractors for carriage of the said trailers as and when required on hire from certain contractors who were registered owners of those tractors. The petitioner did not acquire any tractor of its own, as according to it, the said trailers are used occasionally merely to serve as a platform for the carriage of the containers. The petitioners arranged tractors for carriage of the said trailers as and when required on hire from certain contractors who were registered owners of those tractors. The petitioner did not register the trailers imported by it with the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act nor did it pay any tax thereon under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958 on the ground that no tax was leviable on trailers under the said Act because they were attached to the tractors which were already registered and on which taxes had been paid by the owners thereof. 2. In the alternative, it was contended by the petitioner that even if tax was payable on "trailers" under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, no tax was payable on the trailers imported and used by the petitioner because they were trailers of a special type adopted for use only in an enclosed premises which is specifically excluded from the definition of motor vehicle. 3. Sometime in September 1986, the respondent No. 3, Regional Transport Commissioner, Bombay received a report from the Inspector of Motor Vehicles that a tractor "prime mover" bearing registration mark No. MRL 8022 belonging to one M/s. Marine Forwarding Company, Bombay was attached with unregistered trailer belonging to the principals of the petitioner company i.e. M/s. American President Lines Limited. It was reported by the said Inspector that seven more unregistered trailers were also being used by the petitioner for shuttle service by the same tractor. On receipt of the report show-cause notices dated 30 April, 1986 and 3 June, 1986 were issued to the petitioner. On enquiries, it was found by the Regional Transport Officer that the petitioner had imported 160 trailers between the year 1973 to 1975, some of which were sent to Bombay Port Trust, some re-exported, some despatched to Cochin and 58 trailers were used by the petitioner at Bombay with the aid of registered tractors belonging to others. There is no dispute about the fact that the tractors taken on hire by the petitioner were all registered by their owners with the authorities concerned. There is no dispute about the fact that the tractors taken on hire by the petitioner were all registered by their owners with the authorities concerned. On the basis of the above report, the Taxation Authority under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act assessed the petitioner to tax in respect of the above trailers from the date of their import treating them as "articulated vehicles" and raised a demand of Rs. 87,20,965.50 with interest at the rate of two percent per month on the petitioner. On 12 September, 1986 a demand notice was accordingly issued by the Regional Transport Officer to the petitioner directing it to pay the above amount. The petitioners appealed to the Regional Commissioner, Maharashtra who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the demand raised by the Regional Transport Officer. Application for revision made to the Minister for Revenue, Government of Maharashtra (Transport Department) under section 14-A of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act was also rejected by order dated 10 March, 1988. Left with no other remedy under the Act, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. The material facts of this case are not in dispute. The admitted position is that the petitioner, as the agents of the American Company, imported 58 trailers commonly known as "semi-trailers". The said trailers were neither registered under the Motor Vehicles Act nor any tax was paid in respect of them under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act by the petitioner. Though the import was made in the years 1973 to 1975, it was only sometime in the year 1986 that the taxation authority under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act came to know of the said unregistered trailers being used by the petitioner with the aid of tractors belonging to others. There is also no dispute about the fact that the tractors obtained by the petitioner on hire were duly registered by their owners under the Motor Vehicle Act and tax was paid in respect thereof under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act. It is also the admitted position that though the trailers imported by the petitioner were attached to registered tractors, at that time none of these trailers were registered and did not bear any registration mark thereon. It is also the admitted position that though the trailers imported by the petitioner were attached to registered tractors, at that time none of these trailers were registered and did not bear any registration mark thereon. The authorities were of the opinion that the petitioner was liable to pay the tax in respect of the above trailers treating them as "articulated vehicles". According to the taxation authorities once such a trailer is attached to a tractor it becomes a new unit of articulated vehicle. The tax was levied by the Taxation Authority on the petitioner for number of years on the basis that the petitioner was owner of 44 articulated vehicles. It was contended before me in the course of hearing of this writ petition by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Taxation Authority that while levying tax they have taken into account the instructions governing the levy of tax on "articulated vehicles" which permits it to take into account the weight of the articulated vehicle i.e. tractor and maximum registered loading capacity of the trailer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the respondents were not justified in assessing the petitioner in respect of trailers held by it as owner of "articulated vehicles". According to the learned Counsel, in view of the admitted position that the petitioner never possessed any tractor, they could not be treated as owners of any articulated vehicle. They can, at the most, be treated as owners of trailers simplicitor. But trailers imported by the petitioner being "semi trailers" are not trailers as such and hence not included in the definition of Motor Vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In support of this distinction, the learned Counsel refers to the definition of the "semi trailer" introduced in Clause (39) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to the learned Counsel, semi trailer is completely different and distinct from trailer and does not fall within the expression "trailer" as defined by Clause (32) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and, as such, it will not fall within the definition of "Motor Vehicle" contained in Clause (17) of section 2 thereof. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Before dealing with the merits of the same, it would be expedient to set out the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 and the effect of the difference in some of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the taxability of the specified variety of trailers known as "semi trailers" under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which was the law applicable during the material period, defines a motor vahicle in Clause (18) of section 2 thus : "(18) "motor vehicle" means 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". (Emphasis supplied) "Trailer" has been defined in Clause (32) of the said section to mean : "(32) "trailer" means any vehicle other than a side-car drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle." In Clause (1-A) of section 2 which was inserted in the Act by the Amendment Act of 1969 with effect from 2-3-1970, "articulated vehicle" has been defined. It reads : "(1-A) "articulated vehicle" means a tractor to which a trailer is attached in such a manner that a part of the trailer is super-imposed on, and a part of the weight of the trailer is borne by the tractor." There was no definition of "semi trailer" in the said Act. The 1939 Act was repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with effect from 1 July, 1989. The 1939 Act was repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with effect from 1 July, 1989. "Motor Vehicle" has been defined in Clause (28) of section 2 of the 1988 Act as under : "(28) "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means 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 thirty-five cubic centimeters." "Trailer" has been defined in Clause (46) thus : "(46) "Trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle." It is evident that now, the variety of trailer known as "semi-trailer" has been excluded from the definition of trailer. "Semi-trailer" has been defined in Clause (39) of section 2. It reads : "(39) "semi-trailer" means a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle and so constructed that a part of it is super-imposed on, and a part of its weight is borne by, the drawing vehicle". "Articulated vehicle" has been defined in Clause (2) of section 2. It reads : "(2) "articulated vehicle" means a motor vehicle to which a semi-trailer is attached". A comparative study of the definitions of the relevant expressions in the 1939 Act, and the 1988 Act set-out above makes it clear that the definition of articulated vehicle" has been bifurcated into two parts. Earlier articulated vehicle was defined to mean a tractor to which a trailer is attached in such a manner that a part of the trailer is super-imposed on, and a part of the weight of the trailer is bornse by the tractor. In the new definition instead of describing the trailer in the definition of articulated vehicle, the expression semi-trailer has been used and the semi-trailer has been defined in Clause (39) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which contains the same description of a trailer as was given earlier in the 1939 Act in the definition of articulated vehicle itself. Thus, the introduction of the definition of semi-trailer and the change in the definition of articulated vehicle in the 1988 Act in effect has made no material change in the position under the 1939 Act and the 1988 Act. The change has assumed importance only because though in the definition of motor vehicle in the 1988 Act, trailer has been included as in the old Act, from the definition of trailer, semi-trailer has now been excluded. As a result, trailers drawn by a motor vehicle and so constructed that a part of it is super-imposed on, and a part of it is borne by the carrying vehicle described in Clause (39) of the 1988 Act as semi-trailers and excluded from the definition of motor vehicle under the 1988 Act whereas in 1939 Act it was not so. Under the 1939 Act, all trailers including semi-trailers were included in motor vehicle. As a result, under the 1939 Act, the petitioner was liable to pay tax on the trailers imported by it as they were motor vehicles within the meaning of section 2(18) of the Act, which it did not pay. 6. It may be pertinent at this stage to observe that the questions whether trailers fall within the definition of motor vehicle and are liable to registration under the Motor Vehicles Act and to pay tax under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act are no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in (M/s. Rasham Singh Brothers v. The Taxation Authority)1, W.P. No. 1213 of 1979 decided on 14 September, 1983, wherein it was held : "The trailer simplicitor is a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". 7. On consideration of the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was observed in the above case : "If all these provisions are read together we are wholly satisfied that the trailer simplicitor which is ready and capable or suitable for use on public place is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act. If the said trailer is ready and capable or suitable for use on public road or in public place then it is liable to pay tax levied under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act." 8. If the said trailer is ready and capable or suitable for use on public road or in public place then it is liable to pay tax levied under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act." 8. The objection of the petitioner that user in the Bombay Dock Area cannot held to be user of the vehicle on the public road is also no more valid in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in (Pandurang v. New India L.I.C. Ltd.)2, A.I.R. 1988 Bom. 248 where it was observed (at 182 Bom.C.R.) : "The definition of `public place" under the Act is, therefore, wide enough to include any place which members of public use and to which they have a right of access. The right of access may be permissive, limited, restricted or regulated by oral or written permission by tickets, passes or badges or on payment of fee. The use may be restricted generally or to particular purpose or purposes. What is necessary is that the place must be accessible to the members of public and be available for their use, enjoyment, avocation or other purpose." 9. In the above case the controversy was whether the factory premises including the main road belonging to Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited situated at Pimpri-Pune could be said to be public place within the meaning of section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was in this context that the above observations were made and it was held that it was a public place. The ratio of the above decision clearly applies to the Bombay Dock Area and it has to be held to be public place within the meaning of section 2(24) of the 1939 Act. 10. From the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner, who was in possession of the trailers in question which were kept ready, capable and suitable for use on public road, was liable to register the same as "motor vehicle" under section 2(18) of the 1939 Act and to pay tax in respect thereof under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 at the rates prescribed for trailers in item (a) sub-clause (VIII) of Clause A of the First Schedule to the said Act. Sub-clause (VIII) deals with trailers drawn by motor vehicles. Sub-clause (VIII) deals with trailers drawn by motor vehicles. Item (a) thereof prescribes the maximum annual rates of tax payable when it is used for carriage of goods. The rates are the same as specified in sub-clause (III) of Clause A in respect of motor vehicles used for carriage of goods or material. The rates vary on the basis of maximum registered laden weight of the vehicle. In case of vehicles the registered laden weight of which does not exceed 750 Kgs. the maximum annual rate of tax is Rs. 275/-. It goes up to Rs. 1,650/- in case of vehicles the registered laden weight of which exceeds 6000 kgs. but does not exceed 7,500 kgs. In case of vehicles registered laden weight of which exceeds 7.500 kgs. the rate of tax is Rs. 1,650/- plus Rs. 125/- for every 250 kgs. or part thereof in excess of 7,500 kgs. The above rates are the rates as were substituted by the Maharashtra Act 20 of 1985. Prior to that the rates were different. The above discussion is intended only to illustrate how the rates of tax chargeable on trailers is determined under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act. 11. In the instant case, the admitted position is that tax was not paid by the petitioner in the manner prescribed in the First Schedule in respect of the trailers held by it. There is also no dispute about the fact that the respondents have not levied tax on the trailers held by the petitioner at the rates specified for trailers in item (a) of sub-clause VIII of Clause A of the First Schedule to the Taxation Act. It is fairly stated by the respondents that they have treated each trailer as an "articulated vehicle" within the meaning of section 2(1-A) of the 1939 Act and tax thereon has been computed in respect thereof treating the trailer and the tractor, on which it was super-imposed, as a single unit of `articulated vehicle. In other words, the trailers have been assessed to tax not as trailers but as `articulated vehicles. It may be pertinent to mention here that the Government of Maharashtra have made special provision for registration and assessment of tax on articulated vehicles and the trailer as a single unit. The object of the above exercise of the Government is clear. In other words, the trailers have been assessed to tax not as trailers but as `articulated vehicles. It may be pertinent to mention here that the Government of Maharashtra have made special provision for registration and assessment of tax on articulated vehicles and the trailer as a single unit. The object of the above exercise of the Government is clear. It is intended to levy tax on one tractor and one trailer owned by one person and to exempt all other trailers owned by such person on fulfilment of certain requirements laid down for the purpose. Reference may be made in this connection to Chapter 5 of the manual of the Motor Vehicle Department of the Maharashtra State, Bombay, Part-II of which deals with registration of articulated vehicles. It provides for registration of articulated vehicle as a single unit. It is stated in para 5.2 of the said chapter that "it has been decided to treat an articulated vehicle meaning thereby a tractor and the trailer to be super-imposed on it as a single unit and register it as such". It has also been mentioned in the said para that where the owner of the trailer desire to use an additional trailer or trailers with an articulated vehicle, it would be necessary for the registering authority to record all the particulars of the additional trailers in the registration certificate of an articulated vehicle. It has been made clear in the said para that there is no limit on the number of trailers that can be so recorded for use with an articulated vehicle provided those are owned by the same owner. It is mentioned that it would also be permissible to interchange the trailers in an articulated vehicle and use them with other articulated units provided the chassis number of the additional semi-trailer proposed to be used for the vehicle is recorded in the registration certificate. The maximum laden weight of one `semi-trailer is only to be taken into account and all other trailers which are to be used with the same tractor are exempted from tax. The maximum laden weight of one `semi-trailer is only to be taken into account and all other trailers which are to be used with the same tractor are exempted from tax. It has also been made clear that : "the unit will be liable for B.M.V. Tax considering the trailer with the highest R.L.W. and the additional trailer will be exempted from B.M.V. Tax, vide, G.L., M.D., No. MTA-1771/1-XII-C, dated 10th March, 1972." The Government notification dated 10th March, 1972 is in the following terms : "I am directed to state that Government has decided that a combination viz. tractor plus trailer of largest weight should be treated as the basic articulated unit for registration and taxation and that as regards the other spare trailers, those will be separately registered and should be tax-free, subject to the condition that they will be attached to the specified tractor only. I am to add that necessary notification will be issued in the matter shortly." 12. It may also be pertinent to mention that on 1 April, 1980, the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1958 exempted from taxes levied under sub-sections (1) and (1-A) of section 3 of said Act, inter alia, trailers registered and kept for use as alternative trailers of an articulated vehicle provided that such trailers are used with any one of the tractors as may be specified by the registering authority. The above notification, so far as relevant, reads : HOME DEPARTMENT Mantralaya Bombay 400 032, dated the 1st April, 1980. MOTOR VEHICLES TAX ACT, 1958. No. MTA. The above notification, so far as relevant, reads : HOME DEPARTMENT Mantralaya Bombay 400 032, dated the 1st April, 1980. MOTOR VEHICLES TAX ACT, 1958. No. MTA. 1780/25(75) -TRA-3.--In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 and in supersession of Government Notification, Home Department No. MTA 1773/KII-C dated the 31st May, 1973, the Government of Maharashtra hereby with effect from the 1st day of April 1980 exempts from the tax levied under sub-section (1) and (1-A) of section 3 of the said Act - (a) the following classes of motor vehicles, and (b) the motor vehicles belonging to the following classes of persons :- (a) Class of Motor Vehicles - (vi) Trailers registered and kept for use as alternate trailers of an articulated vehicle provided that such trailers are used with any one of the tractors as may be specified by the Registering Authority. 13. It is clear from the above that both under the 1939 Act and the Taxation Act, a trailer remains of an articulated vehicle is also a trailer. The trailer itself does not become an articulated vehicle when used with an articulated vehicle. The contention of the respondents that a trailer can be treated as articulated vehicle goes counter to the very definition of articulated vehicle contained in Clause (1-A) of section 2 of 1939 Act which defines it to mean "a tractor" to which a trailer is attached. A trailer which in the 1988 Act has been described as "semi-trailer" is a trailer attached to a tractor in the manner specified therein. This clearly goes to show that the articulated vehicle is a particular type of tractor and not its trailer. It is only for the purpose of giving benefit to the owners of the tractors of the specific type described as articulated vehicle that government decided to treat the articulated vehicle and the trailer owned by the same person as a single unit for the purpose of registration and taxation and to exempt all alternate or additional trailers owned by him from taxation. If one does not fall in the terms of the above exemption or does not fulfil conditions laid down therein, he would be liable to pay tax in respect thereof as owner of trailer but not as owner of an articulated vehicle. 14. If one does not fall in the terms of the above exemption or does not fulfil conditions laid down therein, he would be liable to pay tax in respect thereof as owner of trailer but not as owner of an articulated vehicle. 14. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the taxation authority has not levied the tax on the trailers owned by the petitioners at the rates applicable to trailers. It has treated each trailer as a separate articulated vehicle by taking into account the tractor too which is admittedly owned by some other person and also registered with the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act in accordance with law. There is also no dispute that the owners of the tractors have paid tax under the Motor Vehicles Act in terms of the provisions thereof. In such a situation the only liability that can be fastened to the petitioner is the liability to pay tax on the trailers held by it which were 58 in number. Such tax can be levied only at the rates prescribed for trailers in sub-clause (VIII) read with sub-clause (III) of Clause A of the First Schedule to the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the clear opinion that the levy of tax in the instant case on the petitioner in respect of trailers held by it by treating the same as articulated vehicle is not in accordance with law and the demand raised on that basis has to be set aside. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned demand notice date 12 September, 1986 issued by the Regional Transport Officer. It is, however, made clear that the setting aside of the above orders will not in any way preclude the respondents from levying tax on the trailers held by the petitioner treating the same as trailer simplicitor in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958. 16. It is, however, made clear that the setting aside of the above orders will not in any way preclude the respondents from levying tax on the trailers held by the petitioner treating the same as trailer simplicitor in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958. 16. Any amount deposited by the petitioner with the respondents in pursuance of the demand made by them need not be refunded to the petitioner for a period of eight months from today during which period, the respondents if so advised, might determine the tax payable by the petitioner on the trailers in accordance with law after giving the petitioner proper opportunity of hearing in the matter and in the event of any demand being raised, the respondents shall be at liberty to adjust the amount already paid by the petitioner in pursuance of the demand earlier raised by them and to raise a demand for the excess, if any. In the event the amount paid by the petitioner is found to be in excess of the amount determined as payable to the respondents, the extra amount paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to it within three months from the date of assessment made on the lines indicated above. It is also made clear that during the period of eight months, the petitioner shall keep the bank guarantee/bond etc. furnished by it during the pendency of this writ petition alive. 17. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, in pursuance of the direction of this Court no action was taken against the petitioner for further period in respect of said trailers held by it. The learned Counsel wants it to be made clear that they will be at liberty to take proper action in accordance with law for the levy and realisation of tax also for the period subsequent to the period which is subject matter of this writ petition. I do not think any such clarification is required. The respondents are always at liberty to take all such actions which are permissible under the law to realise the revenue lawfully due to them from the petitioner. 18. I do not think any such clarification is required. The respondents are always at liberty to take all such actions which are permissible under the law to realise the revenue lawfully due to them from the petitioner. 18. It is thus made clear that all interim orders protecting the respondents shall continue for the period of eight months from today to enable them to complete fresh assessment in accordance with law on the lines indicated above and to do the needful. 19. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. 20. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 21. Certified copy expedited. Writ petition allowed