AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

5s. Tax for Excavation Vehicle J UDGMENT was given for the

30th December 1939
Page 19
Page 19, 30th December 1939 — 5s. Tax for Excavation Vehicle J UDGMENT was given for the
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

plaintiff in the action brought by the Norwest Construction Co., Ltd., against Lanes County Council for the return of £24 15s. paid in licence duty in respect of a vehicle used for excavation. The hearing took place • at Preston County Court on November 18, when judgment was deferred. The issue was whether the amount of duty should be Ss Or £25.

At the hearing it was stated by Mr. A. E. Bauchier that the vehicle in question was designed by the company and carried an air compressor, drills, breakers and shovels necessary for breaking the earth'and excavating trenches, The machine was used solely for cable laying.

He contended that the vehicle came within the 5s.-duty category and quoted the appropriate section of the licensing act, which referred to vehicles " designed, constructed and used for the purpose of trench digging, or any kind of excavation or shovelling work, which are used on roads only for that purpose or for the purpose of proceed ing to or from the place where they are to be used for that purpose." •

Giving judgment on December 19, Judge R. Peel said : "A vehicle is a thing which carries or hauls, and a vehicle as such never digs nor excavates., Where the legislature refers to a vehicle designed, constructed and used for the purpose of trench digging, they must be contemplating a vehicle into which trench-digging mechanism has been incorporated."

Judge Peel continued that it was said that this vehicle was capable of carrying or hauling a load other than that which was necessary for its propulsion or equipment. But the regulation referred to the manner in which the vehicle was in fact used, not to the way it was capable of being used. The evidence was that this vehicle was not used for carrying or hauling any other load, If it should be so used at any time, a licence of 5s, would thereupon` cease to authorize its activities.

Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £24 15s, and costs.


comments powered by Disqus