Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. These Original Petitions raise the question whether excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles within the definition of S.2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the M. V. act). The further contention raised was that (1) whether the Registering Authorities can insist on the payment of entry tax as a condition precedent for registration of the vehicles and (2) whether the Central Sales Tax paid can be deducted under S.4(2) of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local areas Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Entry Tax act) - 2. The Entry Tax Act came into force on 5.7.1994. Under S.3, tax is levied and collected by the name entry tax on the entry of any motor vehicle into any local area for use or sale therein which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Tax has to be paid at such rate or rates, as may be fixed by the Government by notification. Constitutional validity of the Entry Tax Act was challenged before this Court and was upheld by the decision of this court reported in Rajan v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 369). But in those cases exigibility of entry tax for excavators and road rollers did not come for consideration. S.2(28) of the M. V. Act defines motor vehicle as follows: "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 thirty five cubic centimeters". 3. Regarding excavators, its description is given in O.P. No. 17699/1995 as follows: The excavator loader mounted on four wheels is a mobile digging and loading machine and the petitioner is putting it to use only in his quarries for excavating and shovelling the metal pounded in the quarry and loading the excavated quantities into the lorries brought to the site for transport. However, it will be necessary for the equipment to be taken out of the site, through the public road upto the servicing stations in the town for the indispensable periodical servicing of the unit. Excavators have to be registered under the provisions of Chapter IV of the M.V. Act. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, more details are given regarding excavators. Counter affidavit is filed in O.P. No. 14065/95. The vehicle in question is suitable to move from place to place. It is relevant to consider that the vehicle is having overall measurement which are well within the limits of R.93 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 as in the case of any other vehicles used on roads. The said vehicle is fitted with rubber tyres as used in any other vehicles. It is capable of being driven at a speed of 30 km.ph. The vehicle is provided with service brakes and parking brakes required as per R.96(1) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules as in the case of any other vehicles. It is having a steering system, road lights, direction indicators, rear view mirror, front screen wiper, horns, etc. The above said fittings and provisions in the said vehicle make it perfectly suitable and capable of being used on roads like any other vehicles. The said vehicle is a totally versatile one with various applications in various fields of operation such as construction, agriculture, mining, etc. 5. So far as road rollers are concerned refer to O.P.No. 14158/95. Ext. P4 shows that a certificate of road worthiness has been issued in Form 22 under Rr. 47(g) and 127. Certificates states that the vehicle complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules made thereunder. Road roller is used for crushing and smoothing the road surface which is part of the execution of works contract. It is also admitted that the vehicle has to be registered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The question to be considered is whether these two motor vehicles are motor vehicles as defined in the M.V. Act. Road roller is used for crushing and smoothing the road surface which is part of the execution of works contract. It is also admitted that the vehicle has to be registered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The question to be considered is whether these two motor vehicles are motor vehicles as defined in the M.V. Act. Under S.2(28) of the M.V. Act what is excluded from the M.V. Act is a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other exclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding thirty five Cubic centimetres. No argument was addressed that the vehicle concerned is coming within the last exception. What is argued is that these vehicles are only used in a factory or any other enclosed premises. But it is not denied that the vehicle is adapted for use upon roads. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that merely because the vehicle can be used upon roads it does not mean that it is a motor vehicle, since it is exclusively used within the factory premises or within any other enclosed premises. 6. Since the M.V. Act itself defines motor vehicles, we are governed by the definition Section and the court is not expected to enquire whether what is the popular meaning of motor vehicle. The question has come up for consideration in the following decisions of this court: (1) harrisons & Crossfieldv. State of Kerala-1971 KLT 643 and (2) United States Lines Agency v. State of Kerala & Ors. -1988 (1) KLT 259. Before the Supreme Court, the matter came up for consideration in M/s. Central Coal Fields Ltd. v. State of Orissa - AIR 1992 SC 1371, Union of India v. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. - AIR 1992 SC 1376 and Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa - AIR 1975 SCIT Since the matter is covered by the Supreme Court decision, I am referring to the decision in AIR 1992 SC 1371. Pvt. Ltd. - AIR 1992 SC 1376 and Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa - AIR 1975 SCIT Since the matter is covered by the Supreme Court decision, I am referring to the decision in AIR 1992 SC 1371. There the question was whether dumpers and rockers run on rubber tyres are vehicles adapted or suitable for use on roads are liable to taxation under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act The following observations are relevant for consideration: "It would also be found that under the post-amendment definition, though a motor vehicle may be adapted for use upon roads, nonetheless in order to be taken out of the category it had further to be adapted for use only in a factory or in any other premises Dumpers and Rockers were definitely motor vehicles adapted for use upon roads, as otherwise they would have been held not so within the meaning of A motor vehicle"' 7. "The very nature of these vehicles makes it clear that they are not manufactured or adapted for use only in 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 (AIR 1975 SC 17) by interpretation on the strength of the language in Entry 57, List II of the Constitution. Thus on that basis, it was idle to contend on behalf of the appellants that dumpers and rockers were neither adaptable nor suitable for use on public roads". Thus the reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court was that if the vehicle is suitable to be used on roads, it is motor vehicle. No matter, it is used only for the purpose of factories. Unless, it is shown that the vehicle is not adapted for use on roads, it cannot be exclusively used only in enclosed premises". 8. Petitioners themselves in the Original Petition have admitted that the excavators as well as road rollers are suitable to be used on roads. The reason given by them is that they are intended for the purpose of use in the enclosed premises. Their argument is that it is not meant for trasporting passengers or trasporting goods. 8. Petitioners themselves in the Original Petition have admitted that the excavators as well as road rollers are suitable to be used on roads. The reason given by them is that they are intended for the purpose of use in the enclosed premises. Their argument is that it is not meant for trasporting passengers or trasporting goods. From the definition of motor vehicles, it is not essential that the motor vehicle ceased to be the motor vehicle if it is not used for transporting passengers or goods. The following observations in Union of India v. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1992 SC 1376) are relevant: "Dumpers are vehicles used for transport of goods and thus liable to pay compensatory tax for the availability of roads for them to run upon. Tax is to be paid under S.4 for "keeping for use a motor vehicle", be one the owner thereof or not. It is the keeping of the motor vehicle for use, which attracts taxation. Keeping the motor vehicles for use in the context is for use of public roads of the State. The mere fact that dumpers were used solely on the premises of the owner, or that they are in closed premises, or permission of the Authorities was needed to move them from one place to another, or that they are not intended to be used or are incapable of being used for general purposes, or that they have an unladen and laden capacity depending on their weight and size, is of no consequence, when it was not pleaded that their vehicles are of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises". Further, with regard to road rollers, S.10 of the M.V. Act itself says that it is necessary to take licence for driving road roller. This itself is a sufficient indication to show that road roller is a motor vehicle. Decisions reported in 1988 (1) KLT 259 and 1971 KLT 643 do not help the petitioners. 9. In the above view of the matter, I hold that the above two vehicles are motor vehicles and are liable to tax under the Entry Tax Act. 10. Next contention raised was that registration of motor vehicles is done as per the M.V. Act and under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Central Motor Vehicles Act is passed by the Parliament. In the above view of the matter, I hold that the above two vehicles are motor vehicles and are liable to tax under the Entry Tax Act. 10. Next contention raised was that registration of motor vehicles is done as per the M.V. Act and under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Central Motor Vehicles Act is passed by the Parliament. Contention of the petitioners is that the State Legislature cannot further add condition for registration in addition to that prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed under it. Petitioners refer to S.18 of the Entry Tax Act, which states as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under that Act and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle". Contention of the petitioners is that the Entry Tax Act is a State Act and it cannot over-ride the provisions of the Central Act. Entry Tax Act is passed by the State Legislature by virtue of the powers vested in it under Entry 52 of List II of the Constitution, i.e., Tax on Entry of Goods into Local area. This is the basis on which the Entry Tax Act was declared to be constitutionally valid. 11. M.V. Act is enacted by virtue of Entry in the concurrent list. Thus, both has occupied different fields. It cannot be said that there is repugnancy between the two Acts. In lhe, decision repotted. iu A.S. KrishanaandOrs. v.State of Madras (MR. 1957 SC 297) it was held as follows : "To ascertain the true character of the legislation which is impugned on the ground that it is ultra vires the powers of the Legislature which enacted it, one must have regard to the enactment as a whole, to its objects and to the scope and effect of its provisions. 1957 SC 297) it was held as follows : "To ascertain the true character of the legislation which is impugned on the ground that it is ultra vires the powers of the Legislature which enacted it, one must have regard to the enactment as a whole, to its objects and to the scope and effect of its provisions. It would be quite an erroneous approach to the question to view such a statute not as an organic whole, but as a mere collection of selections, then disintegrate it into parts, examine under what heads of legislation those parts would severally fall, and by that process determine what portions thereof are ultra vires, and what are not". Their Lordships referred to the decision in Subrahmanyan Chettair v. Muttuswami Goundan(AIR 1941 FC 47) and the following observations of Sir Maurice Gwyer C.J. were approved: "It must inevitably happen from time to time that legislation, though purporting to deal with a subject in one list, touches also on a subject in another list, and the different provisions of the enactment may be so closely intertwined that blind adherence to a strictly verbal interpretation would result in a large number of statutes being declared invalid because the Legislature enacting them may appear to have legislated in a forbidden sphere. Hence the rule which has been evolved by the Judicial Committee whereby the impugned statute is examined 'to ascertain its pith and substance or its 'true nature and character', for the purpose of determining whether it is legislation in respect of matters in this list " Further, the following observations in the decision reported in Prafulla Kumar v. Bank of Commerce Ltd. (AIR 1947 PC 60) were also relied on: "pith and substance of the impugned legislation being money lending, it was valid notwithstanding that it incidentally encroached on a field of legislation reserved for the Centre under Entry 28". It is also useful to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1990 SC 2072): "A provision in one legislation to give effect to its dominant purpose may incidentally be on the same subject as covered by the provision of the other legislation. It is also useful to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1990 SC 2072): "A provision in one legislation to give effect to its dominant purpose may incidentally be on the same subject as covered by the provision of the other legislation. But such partial coverage of the same are a in a different context and to achieve a different purpose does not bring about the repugnancy which is intended to be covered by Art.254(2). Both the legislations must be substantially on the same subject to attract the Article". 12. S.18 of the Entry Tax Act only contemplates the provision by which entry tax can be recovered easily. It can only be said to be a mode of recovery. Otherwise, there may be possibility of the tax being avoided after getting the vehicles registered. In this context, I refer to R.73 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It states as follows: "73. Tax clearance certificate to be submitted to the testing station:- No authorised testing station shall accept an application for the grant or renewal of a certificate of fitness unless the same is accompanied by a tax clearance certificate in such form as may be specified by the State Government, from the Regional Transport Officer or Motor Vehicle Inspector having jurisdiction in the area to the effect that the vehicle is not in arrears of motor vehicle tax or any compounding fee referred to in sub-ss.(5) and (6) of S.86". Thus, vehicles will not he registered, if there is arrears of motor vehicle tax. Further, S.15 of the M.V. Act declares that a permit issued under the M.V. Act will become ineffective, if the tax due under the M.V. Act is not paid. These are the provisions made for the recovery of the tax to be easy. Hence, S.8 cannot be said to be a section interfering with the course of registration. It is a provision made by the State Legislature in exercise of its power to recover every tax. Hence, there is no force in the contention raised by the petitioners. 13. Third contention raised by some of the petitioners is that they have purchased vehicles after paying central sales tax. It is a provision made by the State Legislature in exercise of its power to recover every tax. Hence, there is no force in the contention raised by the petitioners. 13. Third contention raised by some of the petitioners is that they have purchased vehicles after paying central sales tax. Under S.4(2) of the Entry Tax Act, deduction is allowed only for any amount paid under the law relating to General Sales Tax in force in the Union Territory or States from which the vehicle was purchased. In one of the Original Petitions, viz., O.P. No. 14158/95, even though a contention was raised that with regard to the vehicles which have been purchased after paying central sales tax, no entry tax can be levied, at the time of argument, learned counsel confined his plea for getting the benefit of deduction under S.4(2) of the Entry Tax Act. There is no difference so far as persons who have purchased the vehicles by paying sales tax in Union Territory or State or those who purchased the vehicles after paying central sales tax. Under the Entry Tax Act, both are bound to pay the entry tax. If that be so, I don't find any justification in not deducting the amount paid as central sales tax. Otherwise, S.4(2) of the Entry Tax Act will be discriminatory. Hence, I direct that the amount paid as central sales tax will also be included in the amount to be deducted under S.4(2) of the Entry Tax Act. 14. In the above view of the matter, Original Petitions are disposed of as follows: (1) Excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles and they are liable to be taxed as per the Entry Tax Act. (2) The amount paid as Central Sales Tax by any of the petitioners for the purchase of the vehicles is liable to be deducted from the amount which they are liable to pay under the Entry Tax Act, and (3) Since in all these cases, the vehicles were allowed to be registered without payment of entry tax as per the interim orders, petitioners are directed to pay entry tax within a period of one month from today. If the amount is not paid within one month from today, they will be liable for penalty under S.15 of the Entry Tax Act.+ \