Entry tax cannot be imposed on an excavator not adapted for road use; detention based on that levy fails.

An excavator mounted on chain plates and used only at work sites was held not to be a motor vehicle because it was not adapted for use on public roads. On that basis, entry tax was not leviable. As the machine did not fall within the taxable category and the legal foundation for detention failed, the impugned detention proceeding was unsustainable and was set aside, with release of the vehicle affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the excavator in question answers the definition of "motor vehicle" so as to attract entry tax. (ii) Whether the detention and impugned proceeding could be sustained in law.

Issue (i): Whether the excavator in question answers the definition of "motor vehicle" so as to attract entry tax.

Analysis: The statutory definition of "motor vehicle" under the Motor Vehicles Act turns on whether the machine is mechanically propelled and adapted for use upon roads. The reasoning applied earlier distinguished vehicles running on tyres from machinery mounted on iron chain plates or caterpillar-like tracks, since the latter are not suitable for public roads and would damage them. On the factual position accepted in the record, the excavator was mounted on chain plates, moved only at work sites, and was not adapted for road use. The authorities' own physical verification supported that conclusion.

Conclusion: The excavator was not a motor vehicle for the purpose of entry tax and no entry tax was payable on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention and impugned proceeding could be sustained in law.

Analysis: The impugned action was examined against the statutory authority invoked for detention and the legal basis for levy. Since the machine did not fall within the taxable category and the proceeding lacked sustainable legal support on the facts and provisions applied, the detention order could not stand.

Conclusion: The impugned proceeding and detention were unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned proceeding was quashed, and release of the vehicle stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A machine is liable to entry tax only if it is a motor vehicle adapted for use on roads; machinery mounted on chain plates and confined to off-road work sites does not satisfy that test.

---