Supreme Court Holds That Heavy Earth Moving Machinery and Construction Equipment Used Exclusively Within Enclosed Premises Are Not “Motor Vehicles” and Are Not Liable to Motor Vehicle Tax

Case Name: UltraTech Cement Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (with connected appeals)
Citation: 2026 INSC 43
Date of Judgment/Order: 08 January 2026
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court held that heavy earth moving machinery and construction equipment vehicles such as dumpers, loaders, excavators, surface miners, dozers and similar equipment, which are specially designed for off-road use and are used exclusively within factory or enclosed industrial premises, are excluded from the definition of “motor vehicle” under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore are not liable for registration or levy of motor vehicle tax under the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958.

Summary: The appeals arose from demands raised by transport authorities in Gujarat requiring UltraTech Cement Ltd. to register and pay motor vehicle tax on heavy earth moving machinery used within its cement plants. Although the machinery was transported in dismantled condition and never used on public roads, the authorities treated them as motor vehicles liable to tax. The Gujarat High Court upheld the levy. The Supreme Court examined Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, Article 265 of the Constitution, the charging provision under Section 3 of the Gujarat Tax Act, and the definition of “motor vehicle” under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Relying on statutory exclusions, expert and manufacturer certificates, Central Motor Vehicle Rules, and precedents including Bolani Ores Ltd. and Tarachand Logistic Solutions Ltd., the Court held that mere capability of movement does not render such special-purpose, off-road equipment taxable when they neither use nor are suitable for use on public roads.

Decision: The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments of the Gujarat High Court were set aside, the levy and collection of registration fees and motor vehicle tax on the appellant’s construction equipment were declared without authority of law, and the State was restrained from enforcing such demands, with no order as to costs and all pending applications disposed of.