JUDGMENT C.L. Soni, J. 1. Since both the petitions raise common issue, they are heard and decided together. The question falls for consideration is whether semi-trailer can be subjected to levy of motor vehicle tax when found used with one Section of the registered Articulated Vehicle in respect of which the tax is already paid. 2. In first petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner initially sought direction against the respondents not to take any coercive or penal action under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) pursuant to the checking memo dated 19-7-2005 issued by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles produced at Annexure-B. The petition was then amended pursuant to the order dated 7-3-2014 passed in Civil Application No. 2404 of 2014 so as to challenge order dated 17-1-2006 for recovery of Tax under Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act ('the Tax Act' for short) of Rs. 1,22,626/- with penalty of 25% and interest at the rate of 2% with effect from 1-12-1998 to grant refund of the total amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- paid by the petitioner on 17-1-2006 under the abovesaid order. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of H.M. V. articulated Trailer bearing registration No. GJ-1-AT-9181, which is used for carrying goods. The petitioner has entered into contract with the respondent No. 3 (the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 24251 of 2005) for transportation of Hydrogen Gas Cylinder from Ankleshwar to various destinations in Gujarat and for such purpose, the Hydrogen Gas Cylinder fixed in a manifold structure owned by the respondent No. 3 and mounted on a trailer bearing Chasis No. KE-008-1998 procured by the respondent No. 3 from M/s. Khalsa Engineer Company on 2-6-2005 was attached with the prime-mover of the petitioner and when being taken from Ankleshwar to Dahej, the Inspector of the Motor Vehicles at Mehsana checked the vehicle of the petitioner on 19-7-2005 and detained the vehicle under Sec. 207 of the Act. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to use his prime-mover for drawing any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him, and therefore, the respondent No. 3 had got no authority to seize and detain the vehicle of the petitioner. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to use his prime-mover for drawing any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him, and therefore, the respondent No. 3 had got no authority to seize and detain the vehicle of the petitioner. The petitioner has got valid permit for his vehicle and also paid the tax, and therefore, the respondent No. 2 has no authority to issue show-cause notice demanding the tax with penalty and pass order for recovery of the tax from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is liable to pay tax on use of additional semi-trailer. 5. The petition is opposed by affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, stating that when the vehicle of the petitioner was checked, the trailer got registered with the prime-mover was not attached but, trailer not registered with the prime-mover was found attached, and therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay the tax as also the penalty as the petitioner unauthorisedly used his vehicle without payment of tax. 6. In additional affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that there are two vehicles in existence, one is the articulated vehicle-I of the petitioner, comprises of prime-mover No. GJ-1-AT-9181 plus semi-trailer No. DEW/07/2004 and the second is articulated Vehicle-II i.e., prime-mover No. GJ-l-AT-9181 plus semi-trailer KE-008-1998. It is further stated that tax on second goods vehicle was not paid. A question is raised in this affidavit as to whether notwithstanding the fact that the tax on first vehicle is duly paid, however, the second vehicle which comprises the same prime-mover used in the first vehicle is liable for the motor vehicle tax or not. It is further stated that semi-trailer chasis No. KE-008 of 1998 was not mentioned in the Registration Certificate of articulated vehicle No. GJ-1-AT-8191. 7. In Special Civil Application No. 24251 of 2005 filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent No. 2 of detaining semi-trailer bearing Chasis No. KE-008 of 1998 pursuant to the checking memo dated 19-7-2005 and also prayed for a restraint order against the execution of demand notice dated 13-9-2005 addressed to the petitioner of the first petition, copy whereof was sent to the petitioner of this petition. Since, the semi-trailer belonging to this petitioner found attached with the prime-mover of the petitioner of the first petition, the same was detained. It is stated in this petition that on same averments and grounds taken by the petitioner in the first petition, the action of the respondents of detaining semi-trailer and demanding tax is challenged. 8. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, the stand taken is that though under Sec. 66(2) of the Act, the permit holder of the articulated vehicle is entitled to join any other trailer, however, such trailer is not exempted from the payment of tax. The owner of the trailer is, therefore, required to make payment of tax towards usage of such trailer, and since, no tax is paid thereon, the vehicle is detained by the authority. 9. I have heard learned Advocates for the parties. Learned Advocate Mr. Ramkrishna Dave and Mr. Navin K. Pahwa appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions submitted that the petitioner of the first petition has got its articulated vehicle registered under the Act and even the tax under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (now the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958) ('the Tax Act' for short) is paid. Learned Advocates submitted that semi-trailer is not a motor vehicle, and therefore, no separate tax under the Tax Act is required to be paid on semi-trailer. Learned Advocates submitted that under Sec. 66(2) of the Act, the owner of articulated vehicle is permitted to use any other semi-trailer with the prime-mover of his articulated vehicle and such use cannot attract tax by considering the prime-mover and that other semi-trailer as independent and second motor vehicle. Learned Advocates, therefore, submitted that once the tax was paid on the articulated vehicle of the petitioner of first petition, on interchangeability or use of semi-trailer of the petitioner of the second petition with the prime-mover of the first petitioner, the semi-trailer could not have been detained and the petitioner of first petition could not have been subjected to levy and payment of tax for second time. Learned Advocates submitted that by amendment in the Act, the Legislature clearly intended not to consider the semi-trailer as the motor vehicle, and therefore, no tax under the Tax Act could be levied on the semi-trailer. Learned Advocates submitted that by amendment in the Act, the Legislature clearly intended not to consider the semi-trailer as the motor vehicle, and therefore, no tax under the Tax Act could be levied on the semi-trailer. Learned Advocates submitted that since the semi-trailer could not be subjected to payment of tax, the whole action of the respondents of detaining the vehicles of the petitioners and asking them to pay tax on semi-trailer, belonging to the petitioner of second petition, is unauthorised. They, therefore, urged to allow the petitions and to quash and set aside the impugned action of detaining their vehicles and also to quash impugned orders/the demand notices asking them to pay tax on their vehicles. 10. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Banaji appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner of the first petition, since used the semi-trailer of the petitioner of the second petition without any intimation to the respondents and without getting said semi-trailer registered, use of semi-trailer with the prime-mover of the petitioner of the first petition was considered to be independent articulated vehicle, and since, the same was the motor vehicle, the petitioners were required to pay tax on such motor vehicle. Mr. Banaji submitted that the law requires giving intimation in Form Nos. 20 and 23, in respect 6f additional or alternative semi-trailer and if no such information in the prescribed form is provided by the owner of motor vehicle, the authorities are justified to exercise powers to detain such vehicle and subject the same to tax if found used with any prime-mover. Mr. Banaji submitted that simply because the Act permits the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle to use his prime-mover for any other semi-trailer, that would not exempt him from payment of tax if the registration mark of motor vehicle is not described on the semi-trailer and intimation thereof is not given to the authorities. Mr. Banaji submitted that in the present case, it was found as a matter of fact that the articulated vehicle of the petitioner of the first petition was registered for the prime-mover No. GJ-1-AT-9181 with semi-trailer No. DEW/07/2004 and on the day of inspection, the abovesaid prime-mover was found with semi-trailer No. KE-008-1998, which was never registered with the prime-mover. Mr. Banaji submitted that in the present case, it was found as a matter of fact that the articulated vehicle of the petitioner of the first petition was registered for the prime-mover No. GJ-1-AT-9181 with semi-trailer No. DEW/07/2004 and on the day of inspection, the abovesaid prime-mover was found with semi-trailer No. KE-008-1998, which was never registered with the prime-mover. Mr. Banaji submitted since the semi-trailer of the petitioner of the second petition was found attached with the prime-mover of the petitioner of the first petition, it was treated as second motor vehicle and was subjected to tax. Mr. Banaji submitted that the respondent authorities have not committed any illegality in considering the second vehicle as the motor vehicle for the purpose of levying and recovery of the tax, especially when details about semi-trailer of the petitioner of the second petition were not mentioned in the registration certificate of the articulated vehicle of the petitioner of first petition. Mr. Banaji thus urged to dismiss both the petitions. 11. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties, it appears that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner of first petition holds the certificate of registration for his articulated vehicle comprising prime-mover No. GJ-l-AT-9181 with semi-trailer No. DEW/07/2004. There is also no dispute that the petitioner of first petition has paid tax on his articulated vehicle. However, the prime-mover (of the petitioner of first petition) and semi-trailer (of the petitioner of second petition) were detained on the ground that no intimation as regards use of semi-trailer of the petitioner of second petition with the prime-mover of the petitioner of the first petition was given in Form Nos. 20 and 23 and no tax is paid on use of such vehicle. It is required to be noted that the semi-trailer is not a motor vehicle within the definition of the Act. However, use of prime-mover by the petitioner of the first petition with the semi-trailer of the petitioner of the second petition is considered to be second, separate and independent articulated vehicle and therefore the respondent No. 2 passed impugned order dated 17-1-2006 for recovery of Rs. 1,22,626/- with penalty and interest from both the petitioners jointly. 12. However, use of prime-mover by the petitioner of the first petition with the semi-trailer of the petitioner of the second petition is considered to be second, separate and independent articulated vehicle and therefore the respondent No. 2 passed impugned order dated 17-1-2006 for recovery of Rs. 1,22,626/- with penalty and interest from both the petitioners jointly. 12. The definition of the motor vehicle in the old Act of 1939 reads as under: "'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." In the said Act, the 'trailer' was defined as under: "'trailer' means any vehicle other than a side-car drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle." Thus, semi-trailer was considered to be a trailer and in fact there was no separate definition for semi-trailer in the old Act. The 'articulated vehicle' was defined in old Act as under: "'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." 13. In the present Act, the motor vehicle is defined as under: "'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 (twenty-five cubic centimeters);" The definition of the trailer reads as under: " 'trailer' means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle." The definition of the articulated vehicle reads as under: "'articulated vehicle' means a motor vehicle to which a semi-trailer is attached." 14. It is required to be noted that in old Act, since semi-trailer was considered to be a trailer, it was a motor vehicle and was liable to tax separately. However, now since it is not considered to be trailer and does not fall within the definition of motor vehicle, it is not and cannot be separately taxed. 15. In the present Act, initially the semi-trailer was defined as under: "semi-trailer" means a trailer drawn by the motor vehicle and so constructed that a part of it is superimposed on and a part of its weight is borne by the drawing vehicle." Thus, though it is not included in the definition of trailer, since the semitrailer was defined to mean a trailer, it was subjected to tax. 16. However, the said definition of semi-trailer stood amended by the Act of 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994. The amended definition now reads as under: "semi-trailer" means a vehicle not mechanically propelled (other than a trailer), which is intended to be conducted to a motor vehicle and which is so constructed that a portion of it is super-imposed on and a part of whose weight is borne by that motor vehicle;" 17. The marked difference between unamended definition of semi-trailer and the amended definition of semi-trailer in the Act is that, in unamended definition of semi-trailer, the semi-trailer was considered to be a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle. The definition of the trailer though did not include semi-trailer still considered to be motor vehicle even though comprised in articulated vehicle and was subjected to tax independently as motor vehicle. However, as per the amended definition of semi-trailer, it is now though a vehicle but not mechanically propelled (other than a trailer) and thus not a motor vehicle. As per the definition of motor vehicle or vehicle, only those mechanically propelled vehicles adapted for use upon roads including chasis without body attached and trailer are stated to be the motor vehicles. Therefore, though a semi-trailer is a vehicle but since not mechanically propelled, is not included in the definition of the motor vehicle and thus, not a motor vehicle. 18. In the case of Forbes Forbes Campbel and Co. Ltd. v. Vilasrao Deshmukh, the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue and Transport, State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1994 Bom. Therefore, though a semi-trailer is a vehicle but since not mechanically propelled, is not included in the definition of the motor vehicle and thus, not a motor vehicle. 18. In the case of Forbes Forbes Campbel and Co. Ltd. v. Vilasrao Deshmukh, the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue and Transport, State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1994 Bom. 346 , the Bombay High Court had an occasion to consider an issue as to whether a trailer as defined in the old Act of 1939 itself was an articulated vehicle when used with an articulated vehicle. While considering such issue, the Bombay High Court also considered the definition of the semi-trailer of the Act and held that imposing tax on trailer by treating it as articulated vehicle was not in accordance with law. Such conclusion was on the ground that trailer itself was a motor vehicle. It was left open to the authority to take separate action for trailer. The judgment in the said case was delivered on 22-2-1994 and as on that day, as per unamended definition, a semi-trailer was to mean a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle. However, now as per the amended definition of semi-trailer, it is neither a motor vehicle nor a trailer. 19. It was, however, contended by learned A.G.P. Mr. Banaji that no intimation was given by any of the petitioners either in Form No. 20 (an application for registration of motor vehicle) nor the fact about use of another semi-trailer was mentioned in the registration certificate as additional or alternative trailer, and therefore, the prime-mover of the petitioner of the first petition when found attached with the semi-trailer of the petitioner of the second petition was considered as second motor vehicle. Such contention cannot be accepted as the articulated vehicle of the petitioner of the first petition was already registered and since the semitrailer of the petitioner of the second petition is not a separate motor vehicle, there was no question of mentioning anything as regards such semi-trailer in Form No. 20. In fact, no such requirement under the law is pointed out as far as the semi-trailer is concerned. There was also no question of any mention about the semi-trailer of the petitioner of the second petition in the registration certificate of the petitioner of the first petition as the petitioner was issued a registration certificate in connection with his articulated vehicle. There was also no question of any mention about the semi-trailer of the petitioner of the second petition in the registration certificate of the petitioner of the first petition as the petitioner was issued a registration certificate in connection with his articulated vehicle. Not only this, but since the petitioner is permitted to use his registered articulated vehicle, he was otherwise entitled to use another semi-trailer under the provisions of the Act. However, such use of the semi-trailer cannot attract imposition of the tax simply because the intimation of the use of the said semi-trailer was not given to the authorities. If the petitioners had committed any breach of law in not giving the intimation, some other action if permissible could not have been taken but not of levying the tax on the semi-trailer used with the prime-mover of the petitioner of the first petition. 20. Under the provisions of the Tax Act, the tax could be levied and collected only on motor vehicle since a semi-trailer is not a motor vehicle, levy of tax on semi-trailer is not permissible. Mr. Banaji however, submitted that separate and independent semi-trailer may not be subjected to levy of tax, but, when a semi-trailer is not registered with a prime-mover and found used with it without providing intimation to the authorities, the same is considered to be a separate articulated vehicle and considered to be second motor vehicle, and therefore, the tax could be levied on such second articulated vehicle. Such contention cannot be accepted firstly because the semi-trailer itself is not a motor vehicle and secondly use thereof is permitted with a prime-mover, for which the owner of prime-mover holds permit for his articulated vehicle. 21. It appears that since Legislature intended not to treat the semi-trailer as motor vehicle and to permit use of the prime-mover by a holder of a permit of articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailer, two different amendments by the same Act of 54 of 1994 were brought into effect from 14-11-1994. One in the definition of the semi-trailer and the second by insertion of proviso in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 66 for use of prime-mover for other semi-trailer. One in the definition of the semi-trailer and the second by insertion of proviso in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 66 for use of prime-mover for other semi-trailer. The legislative intention in the Central Act by the above amending Act cannot be permitted to be defeated by the executors of the Tax Act by treating the use of prime-mover of the permit holder of articulated vehicle with another semi-trailer as second, separate and independent articulated vehicle so as to construe the same as motor vehicle for the purpose of levying and imposing tax. For the reasons stated above, the petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 17-1-2006 at Annexure-G in the first petition as also the impugned action of detaining the semi-trailer bearing Chasis No. KE-008/1998 of the petitioner of the second petition as also the demand of tax on such semi-trailer from the petitioners are quashed and set aside. The amount of tax with penalty and interest i.e. Rs. 2,35,000/-, deposited/paid by the petitioner of first petition on 17-1-2006 shall be refunded to him within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute in each petition.