ORDER The petitioners have raised the challenge to the orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3 demanding the tax in respect of the dumpers, shovels, forklift, pay loaders, cranes and excavators (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'EMEs' for short). The petitioners have also called into question the consequent demand notices for the payment of tax on EMEs. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pramod Kathavi submitted that the EMEs are not motor vehicles adapted for use on roads. According to the learned Counsel, the question of levying the tax under Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 ('1957 Act' for short) would arise only when the motor vehicles are suitable for use on the roads. The dimension and weight of the EMEs are such that they cannot be used on the public roads at all. Their overall dimensions exceed the outer limits, prescribed by Rule 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for a motor vehicle. This implies that the EMEs are not the motor vehicles as per the definition contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('1988 Act' for short). They are being used for mining purposes within the project area or factory premises. Even if they are to be repaired, it is being done only in the petitioners' private premises. 3. Sri Kathavi reads out the definition of 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' contained in Section 2(28) of 1988 Act (which corresponds to Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('1939 Act' for short). It reads as follows.- "2. (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 is not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimetres". 4. He also brings to my notice, Section 3(1) of the 1957 Act, which reads as follows.- "3. Levy of tax.--(1) A tax at the rates specified in Part A of the Schedule shall be levied on all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads". 5. 4. He also brings to my notice, Section 3(1) of the 1957 Act, which reads as follows.- "3. Levy of tax.--(1) A tax at the rates specified in Part A of the Schedule shall be levied on all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads". 5. It is the further submission of Sri Kathavi that when the provisions for taxing contained in Section 3(1) of the 1957 Act and the definition of the 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' contained in Section 2(28) of 1988 Act are read together, it becomes clear that only such of the vehicles, which are adaptable for being used on the public roads, become liable to be taxed. 6. It is Sri Kathavi's grievance that neither the respondent 2 nor the respondent 3 have held any enquiry into the usability of EMEs on public roads. The tax is leviable only on the vehicles, which are suitable for use on public roads. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the heavy vehicles in question owned by the petitioners are being plied on the public roads. Public have no right to access the mining area or the factory area, which is not a public place, road, street, way or thorough fare. The tax on motor vehicles is compensatory tax levied for the use of the road. 7. Just because EMEs are registered with the transport authorities, they do not become liable for taxation automatically. The registration of EMEs is made compulsory only for ensuring safety of passengers and goods, as per Section 39 of 1988 Act, so submits Sri Kathavi. 8. Sri Kathavi sought to draw support from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Bolani Ores Limited v State of Orissa1, to buttress his submission that if a motor vehicle is used solely upon the premises of the owner, it would not attract the liability to tax. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow: "29. ... The Taxation Act is a regulatory measure imposing compensatory taxes for the purpose of raising revenue to meet the expenditure for making roads, maintaining them and for facilitating the movement and regulation of traffic. The validity of the taxing power under Entry 57, List II of the Seventh Schedule read with Article 301 of the Constitution of India depends upon the regulatory and compensatory nature of the taxes. The validity of the taxing power under Entry 57, List II of the Seventh Schedule read with Article 301 of the Constitution of India depends upon the regulatory and compensatory nature of the taxes. It is not the purpose of the Taxation Act to levy taxes on vehicles which do not use the roads or in any way form part of the flow of traffic on the roads which is required to be regulated. The regulations under the Motor Vehicles Act for registration and prohibition of certain categories of vehicles being driven by persons who have no driving licence, even though those vehicles are not plying on the roads are designed to ensure the safety of passengers and goods etc. etc. and for that purpose it is enacted to keep control and check on the vehicles. Legislative power under Entry 35 of List III (Concurrent List) does not bar such a provision. But Entry 57 of List II is subject to the limitations referred to above, namely, that the power of taxation thereunder cannot exceed the compensatory nature which must have some nexus with the vehicles using the roads, viz., public roads. If the vehicles do not use the roads, notwithstanding that they are registered under the Act, they cannot be taxed....". 37. From the very nature of the area operated by these three companies it is obvious that the machines which are the subject-matter of these appeals must be working in their respective mining areas. The mere fact that there is no fence or the barbed wire around, the leasehold premises is not conclusive. There is evidence to show that the public are not allowed to go inside without prior permission, there are gates and a check on ingress and egress is kept by guards who also ensure that no unauthorised persons have access to the mining area, all of which indicate that the respective mining areas are enclosed premises within the meaning of the exceptions under Section 2(1)(c) of the Taxation Act". 9. The learned Counsel has also relied on this Court's decision in the case of R. Pampapathi v Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles, RTO, Hospet and Others1, wherein it is held that no tax can be levied on the loader, if it is not intended to be used on the public roads. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: "18. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: "18. In view of the said pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it has to be held that the word 'roads' used in Entry 57 of the State List has to be understood as 'public roads', meaning thereby that the State Legislatures can enact laws for levy of tax on vehicles which are suitable for use on public roads; and further that such vehicles have in fact been put to use on such public roads. Consequently it has to be held that it will be beyond the competence of the State Legislature to provide for levy of tax on vehicles which are dominantly adapted for use in places other than on public roads, and if the same are not in fact used on public roads". 10. The petitioners' further grievance is that the respondent 3 has passed the impugned order after receiving the order of transfer. 11. Per contra, Sri M. Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioners' EMEs fall within the definition of 'motor vehicles' as defined in Section 2(18) of the 1939 Act and 2(28) of the 1988 Act. He submits that they are fitted with rubber tubes. 12. Sri Kumar brings to my notice that the Government has issued a notification, dated 8-5-1980 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) in exercise of the power conferred by Section 16(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, exempting the tax payable in respect of dumpers, rockers, shovels subject to certain conditions. He further submits that the petitioners have been complying with the conditions stipulated therein. However, the Government issued notification dated 7-12-2000 (Annexure-E to the writ petition), rescinding the earlier notification, dated 8-5-1980. Thus, when the exemption is withdrawn, the petitioners are liable to pay the tax on the EMEs. The petitioners have not challenged the notification, dated 7-12-2000, withdrawing the exemption. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that though the petitioners have been filing a series of writ petitions, they have not challenged the Government notification dated 1-12-2000, withdrawing the exemption granted earlier. He further submits that the petitioners have not prayed for a writ of mandamus to the Government to issue the notification granting exemption from the payment of tax on their vehicles in question. 13. He further submits that the petitioners have not prayed for a writ of mandamus to the Government to issue the notification granting exemption from the payment of tax on their vehicles in question. 13. The learned Additional Government Advocate brings to my notice the provisions contained in Section 4 of the 1957 Act, which reads as follows.- "4. Payment of tax.-(1) The tax levied under Section 3 shall be paid in advance by the registered owner or person having possession or control of the motor vehicle, for a quarter, half year or year, at his choice, within fifteen days from the commencement of such quarter, half year or year as the case may be". 14. Based on the aforesaid extracted provisions of law, he submits that levy of tax under Section 3 of the 1957 Act takes place at earliest point of time. The levy of tax takes place at a point when taxable event m respect of the vehicle occurs. Whether the vehicle is actually used or not on the road subsequently, the tax is payable in advance. Liability to ay the tax does not get extinguished on the happenings of any subsequent event. 15. He further submits that during the manufacturing process of a motor vehicle at some particular point of time, the motor vehicle becomes suitable for use on the roads. The taxable event can be said to have occurred at that point of time. 16. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the law laid down in the cases of Bolani and R. Pampapathi does not hold any longer in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area and Others v State of Orissa Another1. In the said case, the argument that the dumpers are not vehicles adapted for use upon the roads and are therefore outside the scope of taxation statute is negatived. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow: "6. According to Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, since the dimension of the dumpers in question exceed the permissible dimensions under the aforesaid rules, there is an embargo for the dumpers to be used on public roads and as such, the vehicle cannot be taxed under the Taxation Act. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The crux of the question is whether the dumper is a motor vehicle and whether the vehicle attracts liability of tax under Section 3 of the Taxation Act? The very question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Central Coal Fields Limited v State of Orissa, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 133, wherein the various provisions of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 was under consideration and the vehicles which had been taxed under the Taxation Act in the said case were dumpers and rockers. This Court after tracing the legislative history and the decisions of this Court commencing from Bolani Ores Limited v State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 17 , repelled argument of the mine owners who used dumpers within their mining premises to the effect that the dumpers are vehicles not adapted for use upon roads and, therefore, are outside the scope of the Taxation Act and held that these dumpers run on tyres, in marked contrast to chain plates like caterpillars or military tanks. It was also held that by the use of rubber tyres it is evident that they have been adapted for use on roads, which means they are suitable for being used on public roads and on the mere fact that they are required at places to run at a particular speed is not to detract from the position otherwise clear that they are adapted for use on roads. The very nature of these vehicles make it clear that they are not manufactured or adapted for use only in factories or enclosed premises. The mere fact that the dumpers or rockers as suggested are heavy and cannot move on the roads without damaging them is not to say that they are not suitable for use on roads. The word 'adapted' in the provision was read as 'suitable' in Bolani Ores case by interpretation on the strength of the language in Entry 57, List II of the Constitution of India. On the fact-situation, therefore, it must be held that dumpers and rockers are vehicles adapted or suitable for use on roads and being motor vehicles per se, were liable to taxation on the footing of their use or kept for use on public roads. 9. On the fact-situation, therefore, it must be held that dumpers and rockers are vehicles adapted or suitable for use on roads and being motor vehicles per se, were liable to taxation on the footing of their use or kept for use on public roads. 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 Limited and Union of India v Chowgule and Company, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 141, we hold that the dumpers in question are motor vehicles and are taxable within the ambit of the Taxation Act". 17. The learned Additional Government Advocate also brings to my notice the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Gujarat and Others v Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S. Mahamandal and Others1. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: "13. Entry 56 authorises a tax, the incidence of which is on goods and passengers carried by road or on inland waterways. Even though the amount of the tax may be measured by the fares or by the distance travelled, the entry does not specify who should be the assessee and, therefore, it is open to enact a law, to recover the tax from the owners or operators of the vehicles. The tax imposed under this entry is of regulatory and compensatory character. The tax under Entry 57 is leviable by the State Legislature on all vehicles "suitable for use on roads" which are kept in the State. The tax is compensatory in nature and, therefore, must have some nexus with the vehicles using the public roads of the State. The words "suitable for use" signify the kind of vehicles meaning thereby that the vehicles should be such type which are normally capable of running on the road. The entry does not indicate in any manner that tax would be leviable only for the period when the vehicle is actually using the road and not otherwise and therefore, it has no correlation with the actual period of use. The entry does not indicate in any manner that tax would be leviable only for the period when the vehicle is actually using the road and not otherwise and therefore, it has no correlation with the actual period of use. Naturally the State has to maintain the roads and to keep them in proper condition for all those who own vehicles suitable for use on roads. This is irrespective of the fact whether they use it or not or use it occasionally or for short duration only. It being a tax and not a fee (as understood in the conservative sense), the actual use of the public roads of the State cannot be insisted upon for incurring the liability". 18. The learned Additional Government Advocate to my notice the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Mahakoshal Tourist, Napier Town and Others v State of Madhya Pradesh and Others2, wherein it is held that there is a presumption that a motor vehicle for which a certificate of registration is current shall be deemed to be used or kept for use in the State. 19. The petitioners have not produced any proof either before the respondents or before this Court to show that the manufacturers never had any intention of producing the vehicle for being used on the public roads. 20. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation is a regulatory and compensatory legislation. 21. The learned Additional Government Advocate also relies upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Central Coal Fields Limited v State of Orissa and Others1. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: "8. It would be appropriate now to mention that some documentary material was sent to us by the appellants by means of an affidavit after we had reserved judgment. That material is suggestive of the fact that dumpers in some States are granted permission to run on public roads at a speed not exceeding 16 kms. per hour and on bridges and culverts at a speed not exceeding 8 kms. per hour. From this it is suggested that they have a minimum weight and safe laden weight fixed on some principles. per hour and on bridges and culverts at a speed not exceeding 8 kms. per hour. From this it is suggested that they have a minimum weight and safe laden weight fixed on some principles. Pictures of various types of dumpers have also been sent to us which indicate prominently one factor that these dumpers run on tyres, in marked contrast to chain plates like cater pillers or military tanks. By the use of rubber tyres it is evident that they have been adapted for use on roads, which means they are suitable for being used on public roads. The mere fact that they are required at places to run at a particular speed is not to detract from the position otherwise clear that they are adapted for use on roads. The very nature of these vehicles make it clear that they are not manufactured or adapted for use only in factories or enclosed premises. The mere fact that the dumpers or rockers as suggested are heavy and cannot move on the roads without damaging them is not to say that they are not suitable for use on roads. The word 'adapted' in the provision was read as 'suitable' in Bolani Ores case by interpretation on the strength of the language in Entry 57, List II of the Constitution of India. Thus on that basis it was idle to contend on behalf of the appellant that dumpers and rockers were neither adaptable nor suitable for use on public roads. Thus on the fact situation, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was right in concluding that dumpers and rockers are vehicles adapted or suitable for use on roads and being motor vehicles per se, as held in Bolani Ores case, were liable to taxation on the footing of their use or kept for use on public roads; the network of which, the State spreads, maintains it and keeps available for use of motor vehicles and hence entitled to a regulatory and compensatory tax. (Exemptions claimable apart). The appellants, therefore, in our view, have no case for grant of any relief in these appeals". 22. The brilliant arguments advanced by Sri Kathavi do not hold good, as the tax is compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law. (Exemptions claimable apart). The appellants, therefore, in our view, have no case for grant of any relief in these appeals". 22. The brilliant arguments advanced by Sri Kathavi do not hold good, as the tax is compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law. There is no quid pro quo that a vehicle is not exigible to tax, if it is not making use of the public roads. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat, the actual use of the roads of the States cannot be insisted upon for incurring the tax liability. The reliance by the petitioner's side on Bolani and R. Pampapaihi's cases does not strengthen their cases in anyway. The decisions in the R. Pampapathi's case is following the position stated in Bolani's case. An entirely different view is taken in Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area's case, wherein it is held that if a party, for one reason or the other chooses not to enjoy the services provided by the State, cannot escape the taxing liability on that count. 23. The taxable event occurs simpliciter, when the motor vehicle is suitable for use on roads; it is de hors the subsequent use or non-use of the vehicle on the road. On the non-use of the vehicles on public roads, the petitioners' liability to pay the tax does not cease. There is no nexus between the actual use of the vehicle on the roads and liability to pay the tax. 24. Under Section 4 of the 1957 Act, the levy of tax under Section 3 is payable for a quarter, half a year or year in advance within 15 days from the commencement of such quarter, half a year or year, as the case may be. Thus, under the scheme of 1957 Act, taxing event occurs at the beginning of every quarter, half year or one year, as the case may be. 25. In Central Coal Fields Limited's case, the Apex Court held that the dumpers and rockers are liable to be taxed; such a tax is regulatory and compensatory. As held in the case of State of Gujarat, it is a tax and not a fee. 26. The petitioners have also the grievance that the officer has passed the impugned orders even after receiving his transfer order. As held in the case of State of Gujarat, it is a tax and not a fee. 26. The petitioners have also the grievance that the officer has passed the impugned orders even after receiving his transfer order. While it may be desirable not to pass the order in a case on the receipt of transfer order, there is no rule restraining an officer from doing so. There is neither an allegation of mala fides in these petitions nor the officer, who is stated to have passed the impugned orders after receiving the transfer order, is made a party to these petitions. When it is clear from the impugned orders that the officer, who has passed the order has taken full note of the contentions raised by the petitioners, the matter does not call for any interference by this Court on the ground of the passing of the impugned orders on the day of his transfer. 27. In the result, these petitions are dismissed. However, the liberty is expressly reserved to the petitioners to: (a) Challenge the notification, dated 7-12-2000 in appropriate proceedings. (b) Submit a representation to the Government seeking the exemption or reduction of tax in respect of EMEs prospectively or retrospectively.