Chain-operated excavator outside motor vehicle definition for entry tax, and the show cause notice was quashed.

A chain-operated excavator that is not suitable or adapted for use on public roads does not fall within the statutory definition of a motor vehicle for entry tax purposes. Applying the settled distinction between chain-based machinery and road vehicles, the HC followed earlier binding precedent and found that the excavator in question, supported by invoices and photographs showing chain operation rather than tyre-based movement, was outside the entry tax net. On that basis, the proposed levy could not be sustained, and the show cause notice was quashed as untenable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an excavator/vehicle operating on chains and not on inflated tyres answers the definition of a motor vehicle for the purpose of entry tax, and whether the show cause notice proposing levy of entry tax was sustainable.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled distinction between vehicles fitted with chain plates and vehicles intended for use on public roads. It relied on the earlier binding decision which held that an excavator moving on chains like a caterpillar vehicle or military tank is not suitable or adapted for use on public roads and therefore does not fall within the definition of motor vehicle for entry tax purposes. The invoice and photographs produced showed that the vehicle purchased by the petitioner was chain-operated and not tyre-based, bringing it within the same legal position as the earlier decided case.

Conclusion: The vehicle was held not to be a motor vehicle for the purpose of entry tax, and the impugned show cause notice was held to be untenable and quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A chain-operated excavator that is not suitable or adapted for use on public roads does not fall within the statutory definition of motor vehicle for entry tax liability.

---