Judgment :

Dr. ARIJTI PASAYAT, J.

1.1. Leave granted.

2.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Several Petitions were disposed of by a common judgment and the writ petitions were dismissed. The writ petitioners had questioned the vires of Article II of Part D of the First Schedule of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the `Taxation Act). Order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the Transport Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow was also questioned. The High Court noted that in the meeting held on 20.4.1999 decision was taken by the Transport Commissioner not to realize the Additional Tax at the rate of Rs.45/- per metric ton as provided under Article II of Part D of the First Schedule of the Taxation Act. By order dated 30.10.2000 the Transport Commissioner had informed all his subordinate authorities that the decision had since been revoked and tax in accordance with law was to be realized.

3.3. According to the writ petitioners they were Stage Carriage Operators, they have own buses and operate them on the strength of permanent Stage Carriage Permit granted in their favour by the Regional Transport Authority. Prior to the commencement of the Taxation Act, taxes were realised from the transport operators under the provisions of different enactments enacted i.e. United Provinces Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1935, Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 and U.P. Motor Gadi (Maal Kar) Adhiniyam, 1963.

4.4. The Taxation Act replaced the aforesaid three acts and it became operative from 9.11.1998. The writ petitioner contented that they had paid road tax under Section 4 of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1935 (in short the 1935 Act) which was replaced by Section 4 of the Taxation Act. They had paid a tax at the rate of Rs.2015/-per quarter inclusive of Rs.45 for the luggage of passengers in respect of 55 seater vehicle. With the coming into force of the Taxation Act the Authorities started demanding additional tax at the rate of Rs.45/-for every metric ton on the gross vehicles weight of the vehicle or part thereof in terms of Article II of Part D of the First Schedule of the Act. On protest being raised by the transport operators, a decision was taken by the Transport Commissioner on 20.4.1999 and direction was issued to the subordinate authorities to obtain affidavit from the Stage Carriage operator to the effect that they do not carry goods in their vehicle except the personal luggage of the passengers and on filing of such affidavit the tax demanded under the new provision shall not be realized from them.

5.5. The High Court held that in a vehicle which is covered by the Stage Carriage Permit, luggage of the passengers as also the goods are permitted to be carried. The only restriction is that the weight of goods and passengers luggage and that of the passenger including the weight of unladen vehicle should not exceed the gross vehicles weight.

6. The High Court after referring to various provisions observed that Article II is attracted when passengers goods whether it is personal luggage of the passenger or not is transported in the vehicle. Thus the State Carriage Permit holder were liable to pay tax under Article II of Part D of the First Schedule of the Act. Therefore, the Writ Petitions were dismissed. It was the stand of learned counsel for the appellants that since goods

have not been defined under the Taxation Act, in view of the specific provisions of the Taxation Act i.e. Section 2(o) recourse to the definition given in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the `Act) has to be taken.

6.7. It was submitted that there is no scope for carrying any goods of the passengers and in fact they had not carried any such goods in the Stage Carriage, except the personal luggage and, therefore, they were not liable to pay any tax under the aforesaid Article.

7.8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the