HI6H COURT CF CHHAmSSARH AT BILASPUR bIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENbRA AUSHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N.CHANORAKAR. JJ W.P.NO. 2974 OF 2006 PE 111 lONERS : Rajkumar &upta and others Versus RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P.NO. 1297 OF 2006 PETITIONERS : M/s Kanker Roadways and others Versus RESPONbENTS : State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P.(c) N0. 4652 OF 2006 PETITIONERS : Prit Pal Singh and others Versus RESPON&ENTS : State of Chhattisgarhand others W.P.NO. 1695 OF 2006 PETITIONER5 : M/s Rainbow Travels and others Versus RESPONDENTS : State of Chl.attisgarh and another And W.P.NO. 3852 OF 2006 PEi J: IJ.ONERS : Rajendra Kumar Baid and others Versus RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh and others QR&ER FOR CONSIDERATION HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANbRAKAR. J <3) 01^^" POST FOR ORbER OM^ _MW_200& Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakai Judge "SdT^ Dhirendra Mishra Judge HIGH^COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N.CHANbRAKAR. JJ PETETIONERS W.P.NO. 2974 OF 2006 1. 8. Rajkumar Supta S/o Haridas fiupta, aged about 45 years, R/o Datta Colony, Ambikapur (CG) Vijay Kumar Agrawal, S/o Nandlal Agrawal, Aged about 43 years, R/o Agrasen Ward, Ambikapur. Nandlal Agrawal, S/o Late Ramswaroop Agrawal, Aged about 72 years, R/o Agrasen Ward, Ambikapur (C6) Abdul Hakim, S/o Hamid Ali, Aged about 38 years, R/o Imlipara, Ambikapur (C6) Yogesh Pratap Singh, S/o Shri AP Singh, ^ Aged about 38 years, R/o Babupara, Ambikapur (C6) Akhilesh Pratap Singh, S/o Shn' AP Singh, Aged about 33 years, R/o Babupara, Ambikapur (CG) Bhuwan Baskar Pratap Singh, S/o Shri Ramnath Pratap Singh, Aged about 45 years, R/o Bus Stand, Ambikapur (C6) Rajesh Gupta, S/o Shri Ram Chandra Supta, Aged about 24 years, R/o Bus Stand, Ambikapur (C&) Pratosh &upta, S/o Shri Ramnath Gupta, _Aged about 50 years, RESPONDENTS PETCTTONERS &^ R/o Near Bus Stand, Pratappur, Ambikapur (C6) 10. Sunil Kumar 6upta, S/o Shri Shiv Pyare 6upta, Aged about 35 years, R/o Vill. & Post Ara, Balrampur. Surguja (CG) 11. Vijay Kumar 6upta, S/o Shri 6opal Sao, Aged about33 years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Jashpur (C6) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Transport, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. District Transport Officer/Tax Officer, Jashpur (C6) 3. Registering Authority/Tax Officer, Ambikapur (C6) W.P.No. 1297 of 2006 1. M/s Kanker Roadways, (Partnership firm) Through Preetam Singh Garcha, S/o Late jogendra singh garch, aged 59 years, managing partner, civil lines, Raipur (C&) 2. M/s Rajnandgaon Roadlines, through partner Narendrapal singh Garcha, aged 45 years, head office-civil lines, Raipur (c.g.) 3. M/s Kanker Roadlines, through Partner Smt. Dibjyot Kaur Garcha w/o Narendra pal singh Garcha, aged 40 years, head office-civil lines, Raipur (c.g.) 4. M/s Durg Roadways Private Limited, through managing Director Nirmal Singh Bal s/o S. Lakha Singh Bal, aged 66 years, 6E Road, t)urg (C6) 5. M/s Durg Travells Private Limited "^BSSS 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. 3. ^ through managing director-Arun Vora S/o Shri Moti Lal Vora, aged 44 years, 6E Road, Durg (C6) Durg Bus Service Private limited through managing director-Nand Kumar Rathod s/o Pragji Bhai, aged 47 years, 6E Road, Durg (CG) M/s Naveen Transport thorugh managing partner, Harjindar Singh Bal, aged 45 years, GE Road burg (C6) Durg Transport Private limited through managing director Prakash Deshlahra aged 50 years, GE Road, Durg (C6) M/s Payal Travells, through partner Swaroop chand jain, aged 52 years, sadar bazaar, Durg (CG) Raipur bus service, through partner-Jaswant Singh, aged 62 years. R/o Durg (CG) Manish Travelts, through gartner Manish Kumar Jain, s/o late Bhagchand Jain, aged 33 years, pulgaon, Durg {€&) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Transport, &KS Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C6) Registering Authority/Tax Officer, Raipur (CG) Registering Authority/Tax Officer, Durg (CG) PETTTIONERS W.P.fc) No.4652 of 2006 1. Prit Pal Singh, S/o Harbans Singh, aged about 47 years, residence of Near Bus Stand, Patthalgaon, Distn'ct Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Trilochan Singh, S/o Harbans Singh, aged about 46 years, 4 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. residence of Near Bus Stand, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Manjit Singh, S/o Harbans Singh, aged about 52 years, residence of Near Bus Stand, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Smt. Vaninder Kaur, W/o Prit Pal Singh, aged about 40 years, residence of Near Bus Stand, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Surusharan Singh, S7y Kulbir Singh, aged about^ 30 years, residence of Near Bus Stand, Patthalgaon, &isti"ict Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Jasbir Singh, S/o Angad Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Satpal Singh, s/o Angad Singh, aged about 35 years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. GP Gupta, S/o Shankar Lal Gupta, aged about 41 years, R/o Jain Mandir Road, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. Alka 6upta, W/o GP Gupta, aged about 35 years, R/o Jain Mandir Road, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. Narendra Dansena, S/o DL Dansena, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Sariya, Tahsil Saranggarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Smt. Maya Dansena, W/o Narendra Dansena, aged about 26 years, R/o Vitlage Sariya, Tahsil Saranggarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 12. Rajesh Kumar Shukla, S/o Late RESPON&ENTS PETTTEONERS 0^0 Shri Heera Lal Shukla, aged about 34 years, R/o Barpali Chowk Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 13. Mohd. Kayum Khan, S/o Mohd. Yunus Khan, aged about 42 years, R/o Imlipara, Distt. Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secrstary, Department of Transport, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, ChhattiS9arh, 2. Tax Officer/RTO, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, 3. Tax Officer/RTO, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, 4. Tax Officer/RTO, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, 5. DTO/RTO, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 6. DTO/RTO, Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. W.P.No. 1695 of 2006 1. M/s Rainbow Travels, through Proprietor Anurag Shukla, S/o SC Shukla, aged about 42 years, R/o Shukla Colony Raipur. 2. JS Sawhney S/o Late HS Sawhney, aged about 35 years, R/o Birdi Colony Raipur. 3. Dubey Travels, Partner Brijesh Dubey, S/o ML Dubey, aged about 36 years, R/o Hira Complex, Near Bus Stand, Raipur. 4. Ramakant Prasad 6upta, S/o Jeetan Prasad fiupta, aged about 45 years, Prop. Vijay Transport Ambikapur. 5. H. Gurcha Bus Service Prop. Mrs. HK Gurcha, aged about 45 years, _W/oJ"'te Gurdeep Singh Gurcha, RESPOJ4DENTS ^\ R/o Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur. 6. Mathan Lal S/o Magan Lal aged about 30 years, R/o Pandri Raipur. 7. Satwant Singh, S/o Mahendra Singh, aged about 42 years, R/o Pandri Raipur. 8. Datjeet Singh, S/o Teja Singh, aged about 56 years, R/o Telibandh Raipur. 9. Avtar Singh S/o Kikkar Singh, about 45 years, R/o Telibandh Raipur. 10. Vashan Singh S/o Jogendra Singh, aged about 58 years, R/o Pandri Raipur. 11. Kulraj Singh S/o Malkit Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Pandri Raipur. 12. Dilbag singh S/o D. Singh, aged about 52 years, R/o Pandri Raipur. 13. Hamek Singh, S/o SS Singh, aged about 35 years, R/o Telibandh Raipur. 14. Jagmeer Singh S/o Jeewan Singh, aged about 55 years, R/o Telibandh Raipur. 15. Surjeet Singh S/o Jasvinder Singh, aged about 58. years, R/o Telibandha, Raipur. 16. Mohan Singh, S/o Mahendra Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o Pandri Raipur. 17. Kamaljeet Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, aged about 48 years, R/o Pandri Raipur. 18. Amarjeet Singh, S/o Ranjit Singh, aged about 38 years, R/o Pandri Raipur. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, bepartment of Transport, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. PETTTEONERS ^ 2. Tax Officer/Registering authority, Raipur. And W.P.No.3852 of 2006 1. Rajendra Kumar Baid (Jain) S/o Late shn' C5 Baid, aged about 42 years, resident of Rajasthan lodge, Opposite Old Bus Stand, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Prayag Bus Service, Proprietor Pradeep Kumar, S/o Ram Suhag, aged about 36 years, residence of B-8 Colony 6andhi Nagar, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 3. M/s Badan Travels, through partner Mritunjay Singh, S/o Shri Ram Badan Singh, aged about 36 years, R/o Konatarai, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4. Dhannanjay Singh, S/o Shri Ram Badan Singh, aged about 35 years, R/o Konatarai, District Raigar, Chhattisgarh. 5. Sanjay Singh, S/o Shri Ram Badan Singh, aged about 30 years, R/o Konararai, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6. Mohd. Gufran, S/o Mohd. Tafir, aged about 30 years, R/o Mominpura, District Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 7. Laisa Bibi W/o Lqte Mohd. Sakir, aged about 60 years, R/o Jorapeepal, behind Chitra Mandir, District Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 8. M/s Saluja Bus Service through partner Dilip Singh Saluja S/o Late Ajit Singh Saluja, aged about 54 years, R/o Station Road, Kharsia, District Raigarh (CG) 9. Deepak Izardar, S/o Jeevan Lal Izardar, aged about 20 years, R/o Qft 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Vinoba Nagar, bistt. Raigarh (C&) Ramnivas Agrawal, S/o Late Teluram Agrawal, aged about 48 years, R/o Kashmiri gali, Patthalgaon, Dist. Jashpur (C6) Baldeo Joshi, S/o Late Durga Datta Joshi, aged about 59 years, R/o Kapu, District Raigarh (CG) Tribhuwan Chandra Joshi s/o Shri Prem Baltabh Joshi, aged about 48 years, R/o Kapu, Dist. Rai9arh (C6) Ramdatta Joshi S/o Shri Hari Datta Joshi, aged about 35 years, R/o Kapu, Dist. Raigarh (C6) Hemchandra Joshi, S/o Tularam Joshi, aged about 40 years, R/o Kapu, Dist. Raigarh (C&) Anup Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri B.R. Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o Jute Mill Road, Kaidimula, District Raigarh (CG) Mohd. Fahim (wasim) S/o Late Abdul Hamid Khan, aged about 42 years, R/o Ram Mandir Road, Dist. Ambikapur (C6) Paluram Sao, S/o Shri Girdhari Sao, aged about 30 years, R/o Jutemill road, Kaidaimula, Dist. Raigarh (C6) Rashid Bus Service, through Partner Abdul Rashid Khan, aged about 60 years, R/o Mahamaya road, Jarhagarh, &ist. Ambikapur (CG) Harsh Gupta, S/o SL &upta, aged about 35 years, Jain Mandir Road, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. Vinita 6upta, W/o Harsh Supta, aged about 29 years, C/o Gupta, Tyres, Jain Mandir Road, Jagdalpur. Mahesh Tiwari, S/o Diwakar Tiwari, aged about 30 years, R/o °)\ RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Village Bagda, Post Kotya, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Transport, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Tax Officer/RTO, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. Tax Officer/RTO, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. Tax Officer/RTO, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. DTO/RTO, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Present: Mr. B.K. Rawat and Mr. S.K. Bajpai, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. A.6. for the State. OR DER (Passed on ^May, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J 1. These petitions are being disposed of by this common order as in all these petitions common questions of facts and law are involved. The petitioners by way of above petitions are challenging the notification dated 21 October, 2005, whereby respondent No.l in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (in short "the Act, 1991") has amended sub-rute (2) of Rule 11 and sub-rute (2) of Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Rules, 1991 (in short"the Rules, 1991") , and substituted the word "Rupees Five Hundred" in place of word "Rupees Ten". 10 ^ 2. The petitioners have challenged the above amendment on the ground that; (i) there is no power vested with the State 6ovt. under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 1991 to amend the Rules, 1991; and (ii) that enhancement to Rs.500/- from Rs.10/- is arbitrary and ultra vires to Article 14 <& 19(1)(9) of the Constitution of India, as it has been made without providin9 any additional services to the motor vehicle owners-the petitioners and the same has been imposed without due process of law and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. Placing reliance on the judgment in the matters of J'indal Stainless Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Other^ Shri Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that there is a basic difference between levying tax and fee/compensatory as former is based on the concept of burden whereas compensatory tax/fee is based on the concept of recompense/reimbursement. Imposition of fee is based on the 'principle of equivalence'. For a tax to be compensatory, there must be some link between the quantum of tax and the facility/services rendered by the State in lieu of receipt of fee. In the instant case, by the impugned amendment in Rule 11(2) and Rule 12(2) of the Rules, 1991, the intimation of non use of the motor vehicles to be submitted in Forms K <& M to the Taxation Authority, is to be accompanied by cash of Rs.500/- in place of Rs.10/-, which was the earlier requirement, though there is ' 2006 AIR SCW 3396 11 ^G no any corresponding additional service/benefit to the owners of the motor vehicles being rendered by the State in lieu of exorbitant enhancement in the fee. 4. The respondents, in their return dated 6.8.2006, have adopted the return of Annexure R/l filed in WP No.6389/05. With respect to the first ground that the State has no power to amend the Rules, 1991 under sub- section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 1991, it has been stated that in Hindi version of the notification published in 6ovt. Gazette, dated 4 November, 2005, reference to sub-section 14(1) and (2) has been inadvertently made, whereas English version simultaneously published alongwith Hindi version, correctly mentions that the rules have been amended in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Act, 1991. The inadvertent error in the Hindi version has been since corrected vide notification dated 8 June, 2006 (Annexure R/l). In reply to the another objection that the impugned - notification is arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of Article 14 & 19(l)(g) of the Constitution, it has been averred that fee of Rs.10/- for application under Rule 11(2) and Rule 12(2) was prescribed in the year 1992 as per circumstances prevailing then. Since then there is a considerable change in circumstances as there were very rare instances of the incidence of deposit of permits and non use of vehicles in the midst of validity period in the year 1992. However, the aforesaid provision is now being used by unscrupulous elements with theintention of making 12 ^ illegal gain and thus, the incidence of deposit of permits and non use of motor vehicles has increased manifold. Citing the statistics of the year 2005-06, it has been further averred that the applications in Form K under Rule 11 with respect to 6676 passenger buses and 6738 goods carriage vehicles we.re. received from the operators. The State had to refund Rs.1,66,76,550/- per quarter on account of non use of the above vehicles. Similarly, during the same period, permits issued to 1606 passenger buses were deposited under Form M and for which, the Public Exchequer had to bear extra financial burden of Rs.1,42,45,945/- as the same was to be refunded to the depositors of the permits. Processing of applications under Form K <& M submitted under Rules 11(2) & 12(2) of the Act, 1991, also requires extra exercise in terms of maintenance of account, account books as well as mobilization of large forces of inspecting staff to ensure that the deposit of permit as well as intimation of non use is in fact put into operation and the same is not misused by the motor vehicle owners with malafide intention of personal gain at the cost of Public Exchequer. Enhancement in the fee has been made to meet the extra expenditure incurred by the State. The increase in the fee is also to be considered in the light of prevailing inflation and fast falling value of the Indian currency. 5. Reliance is placed on the orders passed in the matters of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others Vs. Mohd. 13 yasirf. Ved Prakash Agrawal and others Vs. Commissioner, Sorakhpur Division, Sorakhpur and other^ and Jindal Stainless Ltd. and another Vs. State of Haryana and others. «t 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused The material available on record, including the impugned notification. 7. The Act, 1991 regulates levy of tax on motor vehicles; liability and mode of payment of tax. Section 3 of the Act, 1991 provides for levy of tax on motor vehicles. Section 5 provides for the manner in which tax is to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. Section 8 deals with filing of declaration and determination of tax payable, it also provides for filing of additional declaration by the owners where the vehicle is used for any other purpose where higher rate of tax is payabte. Section 14 provides for refund of tax already paid by the owners on the ground that the vehicle was not used during the period for which tax was already paid. Sections 15 and 16 provides for recovery of tax, penalty with interest in the event of failure of the owner to pay tax. Section 24 confers upon the government power to make rules for the purpose of carrying into.effect the provisions of the Act. 8. From perusal of the impugned notification (Annexure P/l), it appears that in Hindi version of the notification, the rules have been amended in exercise of powers under sub- 2 (1983) 3 SCC 229 3(1997)11^CC_3M- 14 ^ section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 14, though from bare reading of the above provision, it is evident that no power is available to the State Sovt. under the aforesaid section to amend the rules. However, in the English version of the notification, reference is to sub- section (l) read with sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 1991. The above inadvertent mistake has been subsequently rectified by ahother notification dated 25 May, 2006 published in Sovernment Sazette dated 16 June, 2006. 9. In the matters of Jindal Stainless Ltd}, after etaborately discussing the difference between tax, fee and compensatory tax, it has been held that the basis of tax is the ability or capacity of the taxpayer to pay tax. The principle behind levy of tax is the principle of ability or capacity. In the case of a tax,there is no identification of a specific benefit and even if such identification is there, it is not capable of direct measurement, whereas, a fee is generally a term of a licence. It is based on the 'principle of equivalence'. The basis of a fee or compensatory tax is the same. Under the principle of equivalence, as applicable to a fee or a compensatory tax, there is an indication of a quantifiable data, namely, a benefit which is measurable. The basic difference between the tax, on the one hand, and fee/compensatory tax on the other, is that the former is based on the concept of burden whereas the latter is based on the concept of recompense/reimbursement. For a tax to be compensatory, there must be some link between tiTe_auantum of tax and the facility/services. 15 ^ Every benefit is measured in terms of cost which has to be reimbursed by compensatory tax or in the form of compensatory tax. In para 41 of the above ju'dgment it has been further observed that compensatory tax is a compulsory contribution tevied broadly in proportion to the special benefits derived to defray the costs of regulation or to meet the outlay incurred for some special advantage to trade, commerce and intercourse. It may incidentally bring in net-revenue to the government but that circumstance is not an essential ingredient of compensatory tax. 10. Similarly, in Municipal Corporation of Delh^, the notification issued by the Dehli Municipal Corporation enhancing the fee for slaughtering animals from Rs.0.25 to Rs.2/- for each animal, was quashed by the High Court of Delhi on the ground that the Corporation was, in fact, proposing levy of tax under the guise of enhancing the fee. - In appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after dealing with its various judgments on the subject-matter, has held in para 9 thus: "9. H/fiat do we learn from these precedents? We learn that there is m generic difference between a tax anda fee. though broadly a tax is a compulsory extracfion as part of a common burden, without promise of any special advantages to classes of taxpayers whereas a fee is apayment for services rendered, benefits prov/ded or privitege conferred. Compulsion is '" . not the hallmark of the distinction between a tax and a fee. That the money collected does 16 11. not go into a separate fund but goes into the consolidated fund does not also necessarily make a levy a tax. Though a fee must have re/ation to the services rendered, or the advantages conferred, such relation need nor be direct, a mere casual relation may be enough. Further. neither the incidence of tfie fee nor the service rendered need be uniform. That others besides those paying the fees are also benefited does not detract from the character of the fee. In fact the special benefit or advantage to the payers of the fees may even be secondary as compared with the primary motive of regulation in the public interest. Nor is the court to assume the role of a cost accountant. It is neither necessary nor expedient to weigh too meticulously the cost of the services rendered etc. against the amount of fees col/ected so as to evenly balance the two. A broad corelationship is a/l that is necessary. Quid pro quo in the strict sense is not the one and only true incfex of a fee; nor is it necessarily absent in a tax. Considering that the price of meat has gone up about 10-12 times since the rates were originally fixed, the increase of fee was held to be wholly justified in the circumstances of the case and the appeal was allowed with costs. In the case of Ved Prakash AgrawaP, the brick kiln owners filed writ petition before the High Court making a grievance that tevy of ticence fee at the rate of Rs.100/- per chimney per year over the brick kiln owners under the bye-law framed by the respondent Zila Panchayat, was illegal and unconstitutional as no service was being rendered to them. To justify the realization of the licence fee on the principle of quid pro quo, the petition was 17 yo'^ allowed by the learned Single Bench by holding that no service was being rendered by the Zila Panchayat to the brick kiln owners. However, in appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. Dismissing the appeat of the brick kiln owners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that for justifying levy of fees, it is not possible to ascertain or to establish that whatever has been realized as fee has been spent to render service to the person concerned. 12. So far as argument of the petitioners based on the inadvertent mistake in Hindi version of the notification dated 21 October, 2005, where reference to sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 1991 hasbeen made, for amending the Rules 11(2) & 12(2) of the Rules, 1991, is concerned, keeping in view the fact that in English version of this notification pubtished simultaneously, there is reference to the correct section, and moreover, subsequently, by publication of fresh notification dated 8 June, 2006 in the Goyernment fiazette, dated 16th June, 2006 (Annexure R/l), thellbove inadvertent mistake has been rectified, we're of the opinion that the same can not be a ground to declare the amendment in Rules 11(2) & 12(2) of the Rules, 1991 ultra vires. 13. So far as the objection that enhancement in the fees as prescribed under Rules 11(2) <& 12(2) of the Rules, 1991 has been made without any additional services/benefits to the owners_jof—tt1^motor vehicles and same is, in fact, 18 VQ^ imposition of tax in the garb of enhancement of fees, is concerned, keeping in view the reasons assigned in the counter affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that the incidence of submission of applications under the above rules pertaining to non user oi the vehicles and non user of the permits, has enhanced manifold in this period resulting in refund of huge amount of the deposited tax, and the department is forced to keep extra vigilance to verify genuineness of the forms of the non users of the motor vehicles and surrender of permits, which is causing extra expenditure on the Public Exchequer, we're of the opinion that it is neither