Judgment : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Does the purchase value of a vehicle, for the purpose of levy of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, include the tax suffered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. 2. Appellant purchased a motor vehicle as per retail invoice which shows the unit price, gross value and net value of that vehicle as Rs.881004.41. Value Added Tax(VAT) levied is added to make up the amount total payable to be Rs.999940.00 The authority under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975, for short, 'MVT Act', insisted on adding not only the VAT component reflected by the retail invoice, but also an additional component towards VAT attributed to revision of rate of VAT. The challenge to such demand was negatived by the learned single Judge holding that the date of registration is what is relevant under the MVT Act. The appellant stood criticised on behalf of the Department that an invoice was generated in March, 2013 anticipating a hike in VAT by April, 2013. 3. In this appeal against the decision of the learned single Judge, among other grounds raised on the basis of the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, Articles 245 and 265 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for short, the 'VAT Act', it is specifically contended and argued that the levy can be only on the purchase value of the vehicle, which does not include VAT or any other tax or duty, having regard to the definition of the term “purchase value” in Section 2(e) of the MVT Act. Levy under the VAT Act also appears to be indicative that, in no way, the VAT component could be brought as part of the 'purchase value' of the vehicle for the purpose of determining the tax under the MVT Act, it is argued. 4. Learned Government Pleader, supporting the impugned judgment pointed out that the instance in hand could be a case of predated issuance of invoice, with intention to get over the additional liability of increased rate of VAT, applicable with effect from 1.4.2013. 4. Learned Government Pleader, supporting the impugned judgment pointed out that the instance in hand could be a case of predated issuance of invoice, with intention to get over the additional liability of increased rate of VAT, applicable with effect from 1.4.2013. He also argued that the amount suffered by the end consumer, that is, the amount spent by the purchaser of the vehicle, is to be treated as the price paid for the purchase of the vehicle and such amount should be treated as the basis for the levy of tax under the MVT Act. 5. Section 3(1) of the MVT Act provides for levy of tax on every motor vehicle falling within that provision, at the rates specified for such vehicle in the Schedule. Serial No.A in Annexure-I of that Schedule provides for, among other things, payment of one time tax for new motor vehicles. The rate of one time tax is fixed at a percentage of the purchase value of the vehicle. Section 2(e) of the MVT Act provides that “purchase value” means the value of the vehicle as shown in the original purchase invoice. When the legislature uses the tool “means”, it means what is said and nothing beyond. When a statute says that a word or phrase shall 'mean' certain things or acts, the definition is a hard-and-fast one, and no other meaning can be assigned to the term so defined. A definition is an explicit statement of the full connotation of a term. Where an interpretation clause defines a word to mean a particular thing, that definition is explanatory and prima facie restrictive - See Punjab Land Devl. & Reclamation Corpn.Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court [ (1990) 3 SCC 682 ], Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly [ AIR 1986 SC 1571 ], Gough v. Gough [(1891) 2 QB 665], P.Kasilingam v. P.S.G.College of Technology [ AIR 1995 SC 1395 ]. Applying this well settled principle of law, the definition “purchase value” in Section 2(e) of the MVT Act cannot be anything beyond the value of the vehicle as shown in the original purchase invoice. 6. Applying this well settled principle of law, the definition “purchase value” in Section 2(e) of the MVT Act cannot be anything beyond the value of the vehicle as shown in the original purchase invoice. 6. If the purchase value of any vehicle is not ascertainable on account of non-availability of the invoice, the purchase value shall be the value or price at which the vehicle of like kind or same specifications is already registered or available with the manufacturer, or as fixed by the Customs and Central Excise Department for the purpose of levying customs duty, as the case may be. This provision, incorporated as a proviso to Section 2(e) provides abundant intrinsic statutory material to understand the term “purchase value” as defined in Section 2(e), beyond any shadow of doubt. The purchase value can never be determined by adding on the VAT component or any customs duty or other charges, over and above the value or price of the vehicle. This is how the “purchase value” has to be determined for the purpose of levy of tax under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the MVT Act, to the extent such levy is dependent on the Schedule to that Act, prescribing the rate of one time tax, on the basis of the purchase value of the vehicle. For the aforesaid reasons, tax that could be levied under the MVT Act for the vehicle covered by the invoice which is Ext.P2 in the writ petition from which this appeal arises shall be determined applying the rate applicable in terms of that Act, on Rs.881004.41, which is the purchase value of that vehicle. It is so declared. The competent authority among the respondents shall accept the appellant's application for registration of the vehicle in terms of this declaration and grant registration, if the application is otherwise in order. Any demand contrary to this declaration shall stand quashed hereby. Writ appeal is ordered accordingly, vacating the impugned judgment.