Judgment :- Sreedevi, J. Appellants in the above appeals who are the petitioners in the writ petitions raised three questions for adjudication. The first question is whether the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles under S.2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. act), (2) whether the Registering authorities can insist on payment of entry tax as a condition precedent for registering the said vehicles and (3) whether the Central Sales Tax paid can be deducted under S.4(2) of the Kerala Taxation on Entry of the Motor Vehicles into Local areas Act (hereinafter referred to as the Entry Tax act). 2. The learned single judge heard the above writ petitions and passed the impugned common judgment whereby the first two questions were answered against the petitioners. The learned judge held that the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles and as such they are liable to be taxed as per the Entry Tax Act, that the amount paid as Central Sales Tax by any of the petitioners for purchase of the vehicles is liable to be deducted from the amount which they are liable to pay under the Entry Tax Act. The petitioners were directed to pay the entry tax within one month from 31.7.1996. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners preferred these appeals. 3. Before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants challenged the judgment on many grounds. 4. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the appellants, we may analyse the various provisions relating to the Entry Tax Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. The first part of S.3 of the Kerala Taxation on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local areas Act, Act XV of 1994, provides as follows: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be levied and collected a tax on the entry of any motor vehicle into any local area for use or sale there in which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988)." From the above provision, it is clear that Motor Vehicles are liable to pay entry tax on its entry into the local area for use or sale therein which is liable for registration in the State under the M.V. Act. 5. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles. 5. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles. S.2(28) of the M.V. Act defines Motor Vehicles 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". It is an admitted fact that excavators and road rollers are mechanically propelled vehicles. So, the next question is whether these vehicles are 'adapted for use on roads'. 6. The meaning of the word 'adapted' in S.2(18) of the old Act has to be interpreted as 'is suitable or is fit for use on the roads'. The Supreme Court in Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 17, has interpreted the word 'adapted' as follows: "The meaning of the word 'adapted' in S.2(18) of the Act is itself indicated in entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which confers a power on the State to tax vehicles whether propelled mechanically or not and uses the word 'suitable' in relation to its use on the roads. The words adapted for use' must therefore, be construed as "suitable for use'. At any rate, words 'adapted for use' cannot be larger in their import by including vehicles which are not suitable for use on roads. In this sense, the words "is adapted' for use have the same connotation as 'is suitable' or 'is fit' for use on roads". The expression 'suitable for use on roads' came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court reported in U.S. Lines Agency v. State of Kerala, 1988(1) KLT 259, where this Court held as follows: "When the definition of motor vehicle under S.2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates that the vehicle should be adapted for use upon roads, the meaning that should be assigned to the words "adapted for use upon roads' is suitable for use on roads. When it is suitable for use on roads, it means' suitable for use on roads in the normal circumstances and not on special or abnormal situation. The definition of the word 'motor vehicle' has to be understood to refer only to vehicles which are reasonably suitable for the road in the sense that an average man could think that the plying of the vehicles on the road would be one of the normal use of the vehicle. That seems to be the test of suitability. Definitely, it cannot be read to mean 'actually used on the roads'. If it could be used as a vehicle that could be put on the road in the normal course it is a motor vehicle". 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 popular meaning of motor vehicle. Before the Supreme Court; the matter came up for consideration in MA. Central Coalfields Ltd. v. State ofOrissa, AIR 199.2 SC 1371, Union of lndia v. Chowqule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1992 SC 1376 and bolani Ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 17. The Supreme Court referring to the Bolani Ores case discussed the liability to pay tax in AfA. Central Coal Fields Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1992 SC 1371. There, the question was whether dumpers and rockers run on rubber tyres are liable to taxation under Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The Court observed: "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 'motor vehicle'." 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the intention of the maker has to be looked into in deciding whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle or not. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the intention of the maker has to be looked into in deciding whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle or not. According to him, excavators are used only for excavating land and excavation is described as the removal of super-post material from the remains or structures of age or civilisation earlier than the present cavity form by cutting, digging or scooping and they are used on public roads only for the purpose of proceeding to or from their place of work and which when so proceeding, neither carry nor haul any other load than such as is necessary for their propulsion or equipment. 8. It is also submitted that the motor vehicle is intended for carrying passengers or for carrying goods and as the excavator is not used for the above two purposes, they cannot be held to be motor vehicles. 9. The excavator loader mounted on four wheels is mobile digging and loading machines. It-is suitable to move from one place to another. This vehicle is fitted with four rubber tyres. It is capable of being driven at a speed of 30 Kms. per hour. It is provided with brakes and parking brakes as in the case of any other vehicles. It has a steering system, road lights, direction indicators, rear view mirror, front screen viper, horns etc. The above provisions make it suitable for being used on the roads. Any reasonable person looking at these vehicles could think that the plying of the vehicles on the road would be one of the normal uses of the vehicles. Therefore„ accepting the decision of the Division Bench (supra) we find that the excavator is a motor vehicle. Hence, we repel the said argument of the counsel for the appellants. 10. Regarding road rollers also, the Court held that they are motor vehicles on the following reasons. Ext. P4 certificate of road worthiness has been issued in Form No. 22 under Rr. 47(g) and 127, which would go to show that the vehicle complies with the provisions of the M. V. Act. Road roller is used for crushing and smoothing road surface which is part of the excavation of the works contract. It is admitted that road rollers are to be registered under the M. V. Act. 47(g) and 127, which would go to show that the vehicle complies with the provisions of the M. V. Act. Road roller is used for crushing and smoothing road surface which is part of the excavation of the works contract. It is admitted that road rollers are to be registered under the M. V. Act. There is nothing to show that road rollers are of a special type adapted for use only in factory or enclosed premises. We do not find anything to interfere with the finding of the learned single judge that excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles as defined in S.2(28) of the M.V. Act. 11. The next question to be looked into is whether excavators and road-rollers are liable to pay entry-tax. In view of S.3 of the Entry Tax Act mentioned above, the appellant are liable to pay entry tax on entry of the vehicles into the State of Kerala as they are purchased from Pondicherry. 12. The next argument advanced by counsel for the appellants is that the registration of motor vehicle is done as per the M.V. Act and under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. According to them, the State Legislature cannot add other conditions for registration of motor vehicles. The Supreme Court while dealing with taxation on Dumpers and Rockers in M/s. Central Coal Fields Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1992 SC 1371 held as follows: "The mere fact that they are required at places to run at a particular speed is not to detract from the position otherwise clear that they are adapted for use on roads. The very nature of these vehicles make it clear that they are not manufactured or adapted for use only in factories or 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 11 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, 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, on the fact situation, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was right in concluding that Dumpers and Rockers are vehicles adapted or suitable for use on roads and being motor vehicles per-se, as held in Bolani Ores case, were liable to taxation on the footing of their use or kept for use on public roads; the net work of which the state spreads, maintains it and keeps available for use of motor vehicles and hence, entitled to a regulatory and compensatory tax". Entry Tax Act was passed by the Legislature by virtue of the powers vested under Entry 52 of List II of the Constitution. Hence, Entry Tax Act was declared to be constitutionally valid. Therefore, that argument has no basis and hence it is repelled. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no provision in the M.V. Act which empowers the registering authority under it to decide the question whether any vehicle brought before it is liable to pay entry tax. But S.18 of the Entry Tax Act provides that where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under the Act and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the M.V. Act, no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by a person concerned in respect of that vehicle. As the above Act is constitutionally valid, the above provision is binding on the petitioners. 14. Regarding the third question, the learned single judge held that the petitioners can reduce the payment of tax paid under the Central Sales Tax Act towards the entry-tax. That finding is contrary to S.4 of the Entry Tax Act. What S.4 provides is this: "Where an importer of a motor vehicle liable to pay tax under this Act, being a dealer in motor vehicles becomes liable to pay tax under the General Sales Tax Act as a result of the sale of such motor vehicle, then the amount of tax payable under the General Sales Tax Act shall be reduced by the amount of tax paid under this Act". So, whatever paid under the General Sales Tax Act can be reduced from the entry tax. Petitioners have no case that they have paid any amount towards General Sales Tax. Therefore, the finding of the learned single judge that the amount paid as Central Sales Tax will be included in the amount to be deducted under S.4(2) of Entry Tax Act is not in conformity with the above provision. Hence, it is set aside. In all other respects, the judgment of the learned single judge is confirmed. The Writ Appeals are disposed of with the above modification. No costs.