JUDGMENT
P.P. Naolekar, J.
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.P. No. 3155/91 (Ramchandra Jhadwani v. State of M.P.), M.P. No. 2549/91 (Hariehand v. State), M.P, No. 2519/91 (Ramswarop Shrivastava v. State), M. P. No. 2476/91 (H.S. Dhanjal v. State), M.P. No. 2525/91 (District Transport Service v. State), M.P. No. 2827/91 (K. P. Pandey v. State), M.P. No. 1365/92 (Channulal Rai v. State), M.P. No. 2621/91 (Jageram Sharma v. State), M. P. No. 2520/91 (Kailesh Narayan Rai v. State), M.P. NO. 2605/91 (Aisha Bai v. State), M.P. No. 2562/91 (Narsingh Bus Service v. State), M.P. No. 2679/91 (M/s. Chhanga Raja Bus Service v. State), M.P. No. 2493/91 (M/s. Raipur Bus Service v. State), M. P.
No. 2583/91 (Pt. Lalaram Bajpai v. State), M.P. No. 2956/91 (Laxmansmgh v. State), M.P. No. 2211/91 (Dhannasingh v. State), M.P. No. 3683/91 (Ratanlal v. State), M.P. No. 2804/91 (Mansingh v. State), M. P. No. 3486/91 (Dineshchand Agnihotri v. State), M.P. No. 3205/91 (Jai Prakash Nara-yan Rai v. State), M.P. No. 2578/91 (Sardar Bhajansingh v. State), M. P. No. 2497/91 (New Bus Trans. Co. Service v. State), M.P. No. 2551/91 ( Mewadas & Co. v. State), M.P. 2458/91 (Ramprasad Purohit v. State), M.P. No. 2895/91 (Bherulal Champalal v. State), M.P. No. 3114/91 (Narbada Bus Service v. State), M.P. No. 3169/91 (Rafiq Ahmad v. State), M.P. No. 3168/91 (Kewal-ram v. State), M.P. No. 3113/91 (Ramakant Shukla v. State), M.P. No. 2666/91 (Puras-wani Bros. & Co. v. State), M.P. No. 2859/91 (Naseer Mohd. v. State), M.P. No. 2294/92 (Basant Kumar Gupta v. State), M.P. No. 2552/91 (Munnawar Jahan Begum v. State), M.P. No. 2575/91 (Somnathv. State), M.P. No. 2463/91 (Deendayal Mehta v. State), M.P. No. 114/92 (Totaram Tillumal v. State), M. P. No.2301/92 Mahendra Kumar v. State), M.P. No. 2171/91 (Smt. Laxmi Sarla Sahu v. State), M. P. No. 2833/91 (Jagdish Pd. Jaiswal v. State), M. P. No. 2554/91 (Rajkishore Singh v. State), M.P. No. 2593/91 (Mahendra Kumar Shyam Kumar Bus Service v. State), M. P. No. 2500/91 (The Raipur Trans. Co. v. State), M.P. No. 3056/91 Jagdish Pal Singh v. State), M.P, No. 2455/91 (Capital Roadways & Finance v. State), M.P. No. 3208/91 (Madanlal v. State), M. P. No. 2749/91 (Marendra Singh Rajput v. State), M.P. No. 4464/92 (Rajendra Karnik v. State), M.P. No. 4469/92 (Gopal Kumar v. State), M.P. No. 2933/91 (Triloksingh v. State), M.P. No. 2789/91 (Shushil Nandan v. State), M.P. No. 2518/91 (Shri Kishan Onkarlal Saraf v. State), M.P. No. 2474/91 (Abdul Razaak v. State), M.P. No. 2914/91 (Babulal Gupta v. State), M.P. No. 342/91 (Salim & Bors. v. State), M. P. No. 351/92 (Nasir Mohd. v. State), M.P. No. 2526/91 (Mohd. Farque v. State), M.P. No. 2505/91 (Phoolchand Munnalal Jaiswal v. State), M.P. No. 2579/91 (Mahesh
Pd. Agrawal v. State), M.P. No. 2483/91 (Manohar Trans. Bus Service v. State), M.P. No. 4482/91 (Onkarnath Sharma v. State), M.P. No. 2550/91 (Nasir Hasan Siddique v. State), M.P. No. 2592/91 (Utsavlal v. State), M.P. No. 2626/91 (Prabhat Trans. Co. v. State), M.P. No. 913/92 (Anil Transport Co. v. State), M. P. No. 3183/91 (Mohanlal Bhawsar v. State), M. P. No. 2698/91 (Chamanlal Modi v. State), M.P. No. 2503/91 (Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State), M.P. No. 2506/91 (Murlidhar Bham-“bhani v. State), M.P. No. 2932/91 (Jeewanlal Malviya v. State), M, P. No. 3066/91 (Rajendra Kumar Rai v. State), M.P. No. 2480/91 (Jabir Ali v. State), M.P. No. 2356/91 (Janki Prasad Singhal v. State), M.P. No. 2890/91 (Padamchand v. State), M.P. No. 3018/91 (Naseem Bus Service v. State), M.P. No. 2908/92 (Vijay Kumar Jain v. State), M.P. No. 2479/91 (Ram Gopal Satyanarayan v. State), M.P. No. 3185/91 (Shakti Travels v. State), M. P. No. 2704/91 (Narayandas Wadhumal v. State), M.P. No. 2654/91 (Kaushal Bus Service v. State), M, P. No. 3354/91 (Haribabu v. State), M.P. No. 3372/91 (Jag-dish Sharma Agarwal v. State), M.P. No. 3464/91 (Iqbal Hussain v. State), M.P. No. 104/92 (Operators Association v. State), M.P. No. 3117/91 (Nirdosh Kumar Jain Bus Service v. State), M.P. No. 2496/91 (Udalsingh Kushwaha v. State), M. P. No. 3400/91 (Satyendra Narayan Khare v. State), M.P. No. 3818/91 (S.S. Bhatia Bus Operator v. State), M.P. No. 2528/91 (Ratanlal Agarwal v. State), M. P. No. 3374/91 (Mahendrasingh v. State), M.P. No. 3373/91 (Rajesh Agarwal v. State), M.P. No. 2521/91 ( Choudhary Transport Co. v. State), M.P. No. 3240/91 (Rajesh Bhatia v. State), M.P. No. 2628/91 (Kamla Bus Service v. State), M.P. No.4136/91 (Daulatram v. State), M.P. No. 182/92 (Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service v. State), M.P. No. 2615/91 (Jagdish Sharma v. State), M.P. No. 2473/91 (Singhi Sahiti M;P. & Trans. Corpn. v. State), M.P. No. 2838/91 (Ramchandra & Co. v. State), M. P. No. 3021/91 (Munnilal Lalit Kumar v. State), M.P. No. 2819/91 (Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service v. State), M.P.
‘No. 3702/91 (Hastimal v. State), M.P. No. 3068/91 (Dayal Shanker Dube v. State), M.P. No. 3429/91 (Devi Prasad v. State), M.P. No. 3671/91 (Surajmal Hiramal Sahu v. State), 3392/91 (S. Tarik Ali v. State), M.P. No. 2648/91 (Manaklal Motilal Agarwal v. State), M.P. No. 2656/91 (Nafees Transport Co. v. State), M.P. No. 3349/91 (Musharaff Mirkhan v. State), M. P. No. 2700/91 (Hukumchand Rajmal Jain v. State), M.P. No. 2617/91 (Ambika Sharan Sharma v. State), M. P. No. 3459/91 (Rajendra Kumar Jain v. State), M.P. No. 2540/91 (Pt. Ramayani Pd. Vyas v. State), M.P. No. 2524/91 (Satyapat Bus Services v. State), M.P. No. 2594/91 (Ajay Shanker Garg v. State), M.P. No. 3803/91 (Rajendra Pratapsingh v. State), M.P. No. 1378/92 (S.S. Agarwal v. State), M.P. No. 2762/91 (Choudhary Ramcharanlal v. State), M.P. No. 2302/92- (Laxminarayan Khandelwal v. State), M, P. No. 608/92 (Kunwar Devendrasingh v. State), M.P. No. 113/92 (Kamla Bus Service v. State), M. P. No. 2295/92 (Bundelkhand Motor Trans. Co. v. State), M. P. No. 253/93 (Sanjee v. singh Pawar v. State), M. P. No, 4302/91 (Lalchand v. State), M.P. No. 2454/91 (Ismail Tayyapji v. State), M.P. No. 2604/91 (Smt. Ishrabai v. State), M.P. No. 4096/91 (Ramarao Malviya v. State), M. P. No. 2803/91 (Guru Kripa Travel v. State), M.P. No. 2845/92 (Smt. Sunderbai Babu-singh v. Regional Trans. Officer), M.P. No. 2477/91 (Jai Janta Bus Service v. State), M.P. No. 889/92 (Kailash Tr. Co. v. State), M. P. No. 10.66/92 (Chouksey Bros. v. State), M.P. No. 1706/92 (Sindhi Sahiti M.P. Tr. Co-op. v. State), M.P. No. 3284/92 (Ram Ratan Gupta v. Tax Officer), M.P. No. 2716/91 (Pratapsingh Puspendrasingh v. State), M. P. No. 2584/91 (Public Trans. Co. v. State), M.P. No. 2581/91 (Shamim Khan v. State), M.P. No. 1760/92 (Sheikh Raphia v. Taxation Authority), M.P. No. 2478/91 (Asad Trans. v. State), M.P. No. 2555/91 (Samrathmal Keshrimal v. State), M.P. No. 2523/91 (Sardar Fatehsingh v. State), M.P. No. 2522/91 (Swami Gayanand Bus Service v. State), M. P. No. 3677/91
(Tahir Hussain v. State), M.P. No. 2290/91 (Bundelkhand Motor Tr. Co. v. State), M.P. No. 3490/91 (Jagdish Chandra Chhabra v. State), M.P. No. 3092/91 Ranveer Upadh-yaya v. State), M.P. No. 3053/91 (Solanki Bus Service v. State), M. P. No. 2690/91 (Muzaffar Khan v. State), M.P. No. 2607/91 (Haji Ishaw Mohd. v. State)’, M. P. No. 1973/91 (Anand Roadways v. State), M.P. No. 2565/91 (Jhannamal Hiralal v. State), M.P. No. 2649/91 (Sardar Santosh-singh v. State), M.P. No. 2471/91 Vishwanth Prasad Ramgopal v. State), M. P. No. 2502/91 (Shree Bus Service v. State), M.P. No. 3025/91 (Rohit Kumar v. State), M.P. No. 2967/91 (Ramsingh Chawla v. State), M.P. No. 2979/91 (Baboosingh v. State), M.P. No. 4453/91 (Kuldip Kumar Dubey v. State), M.P. No. 2853/91 (Jawabai Mohd. v. State), M.P. No. 3912/91 (Shyam Travels v. State), M.P. No. 2891/91 (Samrathlal Basantilal v. State) and M.P. No. 2954/91 (Ramesh Pd. Gupta v. State).
2. By these petitions, the petitioners are assailing the validity of the notification issued on 7-6-1991 increasing the rate of tax by the State Government by amending the Schedule under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947. Section 3-A of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act provides for levy of additional tax on public service vehicles, in addition to the tax levied under Section 3. Section 3-A was inserted in M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 by Act No. 13/78. Tax under section was leviable on all public service vehicles having seating capacity exceeding six passengers, excluding the driver and conductor, at the rate specified in the Third Schedule. The M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 was further amended by Act No. 6/89. This Act received assent of the Governor on 13-4-1989 and was published in the M,P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 17-4-1989. Amongst other sections of the Act of 1947, Section 3-A was also amended. After amendment of Section 3-A by Act No. 6/89, Section 3-A reads as under:
3-A. Levy of additional tax on public service vehicles.-
(1)In addition to the tax levied under Section 3, but subject to rules as may be made
by the State Government in this behalf, there shall be levied and paid to the State Government an additional tax on all public service vehicles at the rate specified in the Third Schedule:
Provided that no additional tax shall be levied on public service vehicles-
(i) having seating capacity not exceeding six passengers excluding the driver and plying with valid permit; or
(ii) plying exclusively within the areas of Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees, Cantonment Boards, Notified Area Committees, Special Area Development authorities and on such routes serving adjacent areas as may be approved and notified by the State Government.
(2) The tax leviable under Sub-section (1) shall be laid by the owner of the public service vehicle for each month at the rate specified in the Third Schedule.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, amend the rate of tax specified in the Third Schedule, and thereupon Third Schedule shall stand amended accordingly. Every notification issued under this Sub-section shall be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly and the provisions of Section 24-A of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1957 (No. 3 of 1958) shall apply thereto as they apply to a rule:
Provided that the rate of tax shall not be increased by more than fifty per cent of the rate specified in the said Schedule:
Provided further that no notification shall be issued under this Sub-section without giving in the Gazette such previous notice as the State Government may consider reasonable of its intention to issue such notification.
Under the Act No. 6/89, the Third Schedule was amended and the rate of tax for stage carriage was specified in column 2 as 16 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for entire distance covered during the month in accordance with the conditions attached to the permit. By notification published in the Gazette dated 29-8-1989, in exercise of the powers conferred
by Sub-section (3) of Section 3-A of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. 1947, the State Government made amendment in the Third Schedule whereunder entries in column” 2 against Item No. 1 ‘stage carriage’, amendment was substituted prescribing rate of tax as 14 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the entire distance covered during the month in accordance with the condition?; attached to the permit; provided that for the period between 16th June and 15tb October, both inclusive, this rate shall be 12 paise per seat per 10 kilometers. By amendment of the Third Schedule introduced by notification dated 29-8-1989, tax was made leviable at 14 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the period 16th October to 15th June and 12 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the period 16th June to 15th October. On 7-2-1991, amendment to Third Schedule to the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 was published. The draft amendment proposed enhancement of 2 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the entire distance to be covered during the month in accordance with the conditions attached to the permit under the Third Schedule. However, this amendment was not adopted by the State Government and on 7-3-1991 a draft proposal making amendment to the Third Schedule of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 was published, required by Sub-section (3) of Section 3-A for information of all persons likely to be affected thereby and notice was given that the said draft will be taken into consideration on the expiry of 10 days from the date of publication of the notice in the M.P. Gazette. This draft amendment of Schedule III was finally adopted by final publication on 7-6-1991 whereunder the Third Schedule in respect of stage carriages was, amended as under :
(a) 20 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the entire distance to be covered during the month in accordance with the conditions attached to the permit.
(b) 20 paise per seal per 10 kilometers for the entire distance to be covered in accordance with the conditions attached to the permit during the period for which the permit is granted.
The direct result of this amendment was that the tax was increased from 14 paise per seat for the period 16th October to 15th June to 20 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the entire distance to be covered and from 12 paise for the period 16th June to 15th October per seat per 10 kilometers to 20 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the entire distance to be covered.
3. Section 3-A, as amended by Act No. 6/89 permits the State Government to levy a tax in addition to the tax levied under Sub-section (3) on public service vehicles at the rates specified in the Third Schedule. Subsection (3) of Section 3-A gives authority to the State Government to issue notification for amending the rate of tax specified in Third Schedule. However, issuance of notification amending the rate of tax is subject to conditions specified under Sub-section (3) read with the proviso, i.e.
(i) Every notification issued under this sub-section is required to be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly and the provisions of Section 24-A of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 (No. 3 of 1958) shall apply.
(ii) No notification shall be issued amending the rate of tax specified in the Third Schedule unless it is published in the Gazette in the form of a previous notice giving intention of making amendment in the Third Schedule.
(iii) The rate of tax shall not be increased by more than fifty per cent of the rate specified in the Third Schedule.
The effect of amendment of Section 3-A is that the delegation of powers given to the State to amend the Third Schedule by notification is restricted to a maximum increase by fifty per cent of the previous rates specified in the Third Schedule and that such amendment shall be made only after giving due notice to the parties likely to be affected by the intended amendment to the Third Schedule by publication in the Gazette.
4, The counsel appearing for the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 7th June 1991 on the ground that they were
not heard prior to the publication of the notification on 7-3-1991 and the tax increased is excessive and will result in closure of their business. It was also submitted that although the intended notice was published in the gazette on 7-3-1991, the Gazette was not circulated within 10 days from the date of publication of notice and thereby the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right of raising objections to the intended increase and also placing their cases before the final publication was made. It is also submitted that the increase of tax by notification dated 7-6-1991 is not in accordance with the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3-A and the increase in fact results an increase of more, than fifty per cent of the rates specified in the Third Schedule by notification of 29-8-1989.
5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the principles of natural justice have no application while exercising the legislative powers, except as provided under the statute itself and the principles of natural justice so far as provided in the second proviso, i.e. publication of notice in the Gazette of intended increase in the tax, has been complied with; the tax increase is not more than fifty per cent of the tax specified in the Third Schedule. In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 233 : AIR 1990 SC 1277, the Supreme Court has held in para 37 as under:
“If a particular function is termed legislative rather than judicial, practical results may follow as far as the parties are concerned. When the function is treated as legislative, a party affected by the order has no right to notice and hearing, unless, of course, the statute requires. It being of general application engulfing a wide sweep of powers, applicable to all persons and situations of a broadly identifiable class, the legislative order may not be vulnerable to challenge merely by reason of its omission to take into account individual peculiarities and differences amongst those falling within the class.”
6. Sub-section (3) of Section 3-A gives authority to the State Government to amend
the rate of tax prescribed in the Third Schedule, of course, subject to certain restrictions. Fixation of rate of tax by notification by the State Government is in the nature of legislative action and the principles of natural justice so far as provided in the second proviso shall apply and non-compliance of that principles of natural justice will certainly invalidate the notification dated 7-6-1991. But the provision does not require giving of notice to individual operators or persons paying tax on stage carriage. The requirement is only of publication of the notice in the Gazette showing intention to increase the rate of tax. Every individual is neither required to be noticed individually nor is required to be heard personally, unless objection is being raised against the increase of tax by that individual. The principles of natural justice so far as it is provided under the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3-A shall apply to the Legislative function of the State in so far as it relates to the amendment of the Third Schedule only and nothing more than (sic). The notification increasing the tax to 20 paise per scat per 10 kilometers was published on 7-3-1991. The notification shows that it is pulished as required by the second proviso to the said Sub-section for information of those persons who are likely to be affected thereby and the draft amendment shall be taken into consideration on the expiry of 10 days from the date of publication. This notification issued on 7-3-1991 complies with the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3-A, which embodies the principle of natural justice in it.
7. So far as the factual aspect, the notification dated 7-3-1991 intending to increase the tax by amending the Third Schedule was not circulated within time so as to give opportunity to the persons affected by the increase to raise objection has been specifically denied by the respondent State in its return. In paragraph 4 of the return it is stated that the first notification was issued on 7-2-1991 and published on the same day giving 10 days time for making objections and as this notification covers only stage carriages, omitting contract carriages, in order to correct the error, another notification dated
7-3-1991 was published in the Gazette inviting objections within 10 days. The respondents have also filed an affidavit of Shri A.K. Khanduriya, Assistant Controller, Government Press Bhopal, in charge of printing, publishing and Despatch as Annexure-R-VI, wherein it is stated that the transport department of the M.P. Government Notification No. 8-3-87-VIII, dated 7th March, 1991, was published in the Extraordinary Gazette vide Sc. No. 195 dated 7th March, 1991, it was despatched to the subscribers through R.M., S. Bhopal on 8-3-1991 and a receipt of the postal department dated 8-3-1991 was ob-tained. This affidavit of a high official of the Central Press, Bhopal clearly indicates that the notification was published on 7th March, 1991 and that it was despatched on 8-3-1991. It is further established by the documents filed by the respondents that as many as 28 objections were heard and decided on 4-6-1991 and thereafter the notification was published on 7-6-1991. The facts, as emerged, clearly indicate that the respondent/State had made fully compliance with the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3-A of the Act and the principles of natural justice as embodied in this section has been complied with.
8. While considering the legislative competence of the State Legislature to impose tax (in this case Section 3-A read with Schedule III of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947), one has to take into consideration that it has two distinct elements : (i) the subject of tax, and (ii) the measure of tax. The subject of tax is person, thing or activity on which tax is imposed and the measure of tax is the standard by which tax is measured. The competence of the legislature to enact a law under a particular head of the ‘legislativc list has to be examined in the context of the subject of the tax. If the subject of the tax falls within the ambit of the legislative powers conferred by legislative head, it will be within the powers of the legislature to impose tax. In the present case, tax has been levied on the motor vehicle on the basis of its sitting capacity and the legislature is competent to enact such a law under Entry 57, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The objection of the petitioners that
they shall not be able to pay the increased tax as the same affect their business is not an argument which can be taken into consideration while considering the validity of the tax levied, unless it can be demonstrated that the tax increased is so exhorbitant that it transgressed the limits embodied in Art. 14 of the Constitution. Tt has been held by the Supreme Court in Spences Hotel Pvt. v. State of West Bengal, 1991 (2) SCC 154 : 1991 AIR SCW 757, that ability to pay tax is no consideration while adjudicating the constitutional validity of a tax legislation. It has also been held in Shri Krishna Das v. Town Area Committee, Chirgoon, AIR 1991 SC 2096 : 1991 AIR SCW 2380.
“It is for the legislature or the taxing authority to determine the question of need, the policy and to select the goods or services for taxation. The Courts cannot review these decisions, Courts cannot review the wisdom or advisability or expediency of a tax as the Court has no concern with the policy of legislation, so long they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. It is only where there is abuse of its powers and transgression of the legislative function in levying a tax, it may be corrected by the judiciary and not otherwise. Taxes may be and often are oppressive, unjust and even unnecessary but this can constitute no reason for judicial interference.”
Here, tax increase is made on the motor vehicles carrying more than six passengers. Thus, the motor vehicle is the subject of tax and the tax provided in the Third Schedule is uniformally levied on all motor vehicle and there is no element of discremination.
9. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the increase of tax is more than fifty per cent, which is in contravention of the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3-A wherein theresis a prohibition that the rate of tax shall not be increased by more than fifty per cent of the rates specified in the said Schedule. By notification dated 29-8-1989 rates have been prescribed as 14 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the period 16th October to 15th June and 12 paise per seat per 10 kilometers from 16th June to
15th October, which has been increased by the impugned notification dated 7-6-1991 to 20 paise per seat per 10 kilometers. Increase from 12 paise to 20 paise for the period 16th June to 15th October will be more than 50 per cent, as the rate of tax prescribed can be to the extent of (12 + 6) = 18 paise only. So far as the increase to 20 paise from 14 paise, it will be within the limits prescribed by the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3-A. as it could be extended up to (14 + 7) = 21 paise. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that if average of 12 paise and 14 paise is taken, the increase is within the limit of 50% of the tax prescribed under the notification dated 29-8-1989. The counsel has given the calculation as under:
14 P X 8 months
=
112 p.
12 P X 4 months
=
48 p.
160 p.
Total addl.
tax per passenger during a year.
Addl. tax
per passenger per month.
=
160_= 13.33 12
Average rate of tax 50% of this
=
13. 33 p.
=
6.67 p.
20.00 p.
(Increase is 50%)
We are afraid, we cannot accept this contention of the counsel for the respondents, firstly because under Sub-section (3) of Section 3-A powers are given to the State Government to amend the rate of tax which is specified in the Third Schedule and not the Schedule itself. If the contention of the counsel is accpeted, it will result in amending the Schedule itself because the rate of tax provided for different periods shall be required to be taken to be one period only for the whole year. Secondly, the calculation as is being done is for the entire year, i.e. 12 months, whereas under Subsection (2) of Section 3-A, the tax is payable every month. Therefore, calculation for the whole year, i.e. 12 months, for payment of tax
is not permissible and as such, increase in the tax as claimed by method adopted, is not in conformity with law.
10. It is settled that if there can be severance of the notification issued and one part of the notification can be saved without affecting the other part of the notification, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the valid part of the notification as in conformity with law and invalid portion of the notification can be struck down. In the present case, under the impugned notification, tax increase of 20 paise from 14 pasie is within the permissible limit as prescribed under the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3A, whereas increase to 20 paise from 12 paise is beyond the limit prescribed by that proviso and the State is not competent to make the increase to 20 paise from 12 paise and, therefore, the notification prescribing that rate, i.e. increase from 12 paise to 20 paise for the period 16th June two 15th October is invalid and beyond the competence of the State and as such is struck down. The rest of the notification, i.e. raising the tax to 10 paise from 14 paise is within the permissible limit and is therefore upheld.
11. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. The parties shall bear their own costs. The Security amount be refunded to the petitioner.