3 C.L.R. 1981 January 21 [PIKIS.J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION STILVIGENERALCLEANERSLTD., Applicants, v. 1.THEMINISTEROFFINANCE, 2.THECOMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, Respondents. (CaseNo.385/87). Taxation—Income tax—Plant or machinery—Mini bus—The Income Tax Law(asamendedbyLaw8179),section 12
(1)—Itexpresslyexcludesfrom thedefinitionof "plantandmachinery"private motorvehiclesqualifying assuchunder theMotorVehicles Traffic Regulations (1973 · 1978)— 5 Testfor determinationofthecharacterofavehicleisitsclassificationundersuchRegulations—Minibusesareclassifiedthereunderasprivatevehicles—Consequently,respondenthadnodiscretioninthematter,buthad totreattheminibusesasnotqualifyingeitherasplantormachinery. 10 Thefacts of thiscasesufficiently appear from thehereinaboveheadnote. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: HellenicBank v. Republic
(1986)3C.L.R. 267; 15 Melikian andCo.v. Republic
(1985)3C.L.R.1322. 51 Stilvi General Cleaners v.Minister of Finance
(1988)Recourse. Recourseagainsttheincometaxassessmentsraisedonapplicantsfortheyears 1981 -1985. A. PapacharalambouswithP.Angelides,fortheapplicants. Y.Lazarou, for therespondents. 5 Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS J.read thefollowingjudgment.Thisisan application forreviewofthevalidityoftaxassessmentswherebytheliability oftheapplicantstoincometaxfortheyears 1981 -1985inclusive wasdetermined. Notwithstandingthegeneralityofthechallenge 10 totheassessments,theobjectionsoftheapplicantswereconfined toone aspectof themonly, namely,therefusal of theCommissioner totreat mini busesacquired bytheapplicants asplantor machineryandthesequentialdisallowanceofthemoniesincurred for theirpurchase asacapital investment.Thelimitation of the 15 contentiousissueswasforeshadowed byaletterofapplicant'saccountantdated23rd March, 1987,andconfirmed bytheaddress submittedbycounselandconfirmedontheirbehalf. An earlier suggestion for the deduction of interest paid for failuretomeetspecialcontributionsattheappointedtime,wasnot 20 pursued;righdy,inmy view,consideringthenatureofthepaymentandthedecision inHellenicBankv.Republic*. Section 12
(1)oftheIncomeTaxLaw(asamendedandfashioned bys.2of Law 8/79), expressly excludes from thedefinition ofplant and machinery private motor vehiclesqualifying as such under the 25 MotorVehiclesTraffic Regulations(1973-1978).Unlikeprivate vehicles/goodsvehiclesqualifyforexception. Regulation 17
(7)(N)of the aforementioned regulationsdefines goodsvehicleasoneconstructed oradaptedforthecarriage *
(1986)3 CLJt. 267. 52 3 C.L.R. Stilvi General Cleaners v. Minister of Finance Pikis J. ofgoods.Thetestfordeterminationofthecharacterofthevehicle isitsclassification undertheRoadTraffic Regulationsandnotthe usemadeofit.ThiswasmadebytheFullBenchoftheSupreme CourtinMelikianandCo.v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R.1322. 5 Theobject ofs.12istodefine withprecision thevehiclesthat qualify asplantormachineryandforwhichcorrespondingallowance may be made under its provisions. Their classification is solelydependentontheprovisionsoftherelevantregulationsleavingnodiscretiontotheCommissionertoadoptanyothertestfor 10 theirclassification. Theminibusesacquired bytheappellants,afirmofwindow andcarpetcleaners,wereprivatevehicleswithinthemeaningof the Regulations adapted for the carriage of passengers and as suchincapableofqualifying aseitherplantormachineryforthe 15 purposes of s.12of thelaw.Thatbeingthecase,thedecisionof therespondents isconfirmed pursuant totheprovisions of Art. 146.4(a) of theConstitution; and therecourse isdismissed accordingly.Noorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. on *
(1985)3CLR 1322. 53