JUDGMENT A.P. Srivastava, J. - This is a petitioner's appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Mehrotra dismissing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a limited company carrying on business in sugar & cloth. It manufactures cloth in its textile mills situated outside the municipal limits of Saharanpur. The cloth is then exported out of Saharanpur by rail to other places. After being packed in bales the cloth is put on motor lorries which have to pass through the Saharanpur Municipal area in order to reach the railway station for being booked by rail. The Municipal Board of Saharanpur levies a terminal toll on all laden vehicles entering its toil limits. In respect of vehicles carrying goods which are declared to be for immediate export, however, on payment of a small fee, a transit pass is issued to the vehicles which entitled them to pass through the export barrier within a fixed time without any sorting or change of bulk in the goods. Contending that the motor lorries which carried the bales of cloth manufactured by the appellant from its mills to the railway station for being blocked for export were also entitled to the benefit of transit passes, the appellant moved the Municipal authorities for that relief. The request was, however, rejected. The appellant then filed the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen and prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue. (a) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Municipal Board not to charge any tax from the petitioner on the goods entering the municipal area which are declared by the petitioner to be meant or immediate export from the municipal area by means of rail booking: (b) a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Board to issue transit passes in respect of motor lorries carrying the petitioner's goods which are declared to be meant for immediate export by rail booking; and (c) a writ, direction or order to the respondent Municipal Board for refunding the entire tax paid by the petitioner under protest in respect of goods which entered the municipal area but were declared to be meant for immediate export by rail booking. The petition was contested on behalf of the Municipal Board mainly on the ground that the rule relating to transit passes was not applicable to the motor lorries carrying the goods of the appellant because those lorries did not take the goods outside the municipal limits, the railway station where the goods were unloaded being within those limits. 2. The petition was dismissed by the learned Judge who heard it as he took the view that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the rule relating to transit passes. Hence this appeal. The contentions urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal were these:- (1) That on a proper interpretation of the relevant rules the appellant was entitled to get transit passes in respect of the goods it wanted to export. (2) That the rules relating to terminal toll are invalid as (a) What is charged under them in the name of toll on vehicles is really a tax on goods and under the provisions of section 128 of the Municipalities Act it is not open to the Board to levy a tax on goods unless they an meant for consumption within the municipal limits, and (b) that R. 8 of the Rules as interpreted by the Municipal Board makes an unjustifiable discrimination between goods that are being exported by rail and that are being exported by motor lorries. (3) That R. 8 of the Rules is not severable from the rest. If it is invalid the entire Rules must be struck down and no terminal toll can be charged by the Municipal Board at all. 3. It is worth noting at this stage that on the 8th September, 1955 when the petition was filed the rules relating to terminal toll which were in force in Saharanpur were those mentioned in Annexure 'B' of the affidavit filed in support of the petition. A day earlier on the 9th Sep. 1955, however, a new set of rules relating to transit of goods on vehicles through all municipalities including that of Saharanpur were notified which were to come into force from the 15th Oct., 1955. They are to be found in Annexure 'I' to the affidavit of Sri Madho Prasad filed on behalf of the respondent. 1955, however, a new set of rules relating to transit of goods on vehicles through all municipalities including that of Saharanpur were notified which were to come into force from the 15th Oct., 1955. They are to be found in Annexure 'I' to the affidavit of Sri Madho Prasad filed on behalf of the respondent. As these latter rules were not in force on the date on which the petition was filed we are not concerned in the present appeal with those rules. We must confine our attention in this appeal to the rules to be found in Annexure 'B'. 4. According to the rules in Annexure 'B' a terminal toll was payable at the point of entry in the Municipal area in respect, inter alia, of laden vehicles at rates referred to therein. An exception was, however, provided in R. 8 which reads as follows. "8. (a) If the person incharge of any motor lorry laden with taxable goods declares in writing to the Moharrir at the import barrier that the goods he is importing into the limits of the Municipality are meant for immediate export from such limits without sorting and change of bulk, the Moharrir shall issue a transit pass in Form 61 of the M.A.C. to such person incharge of the motor lorry, who shall present the same together with the motor lorry carrying the goods covered thereby to the Moharrir at the barrier of export within half an hour from the time of issue of the transit pass. (b) The Moharrir shall retain the transit pass and after he has verified the lorry and the goods therein with the entries in the transit pass allow such lorry with the goods to pass out of the barrier and shall sign a certificate to this effect on the transit pass. (c) In case of a pass being presented after the expiry of the time allowed for transit or there being a discrepancy in the description of the lorry presented or the goods carried thereby the Moharrir shall make a note to this effect on the transit pass and shall submit the same to the Tax Inspector or Superintendent. The fee for transit pass shall be Rs. 2 per lorry. 5. The fee for transit pass shall be Rs. 2 per lorry. 5. The main grievance of the appellant is that though all the essential requirements of R. 8(a) were fulfilled in respect of the motor lorries carrying its bales of cloth from its mills to the railway station at Saharanpur it was being wrongfully deprived of the benefit of the rule as transit passes were refused in respect of those lorries and the toll paid was not refunded. It is pointed out that the persons incharge of the motor lorries laden with the appellant's bales of cloth declared in writing to the Moharrir at the import barrier that the goods were meant for immediate export. The goods were taken to the railway station without any sorting or change of bulk. The goods were actually meant for being exported to other places. There was therefore no valid ground, it is urged, why transit passes should not have been issued in respect of these motor lorries. 6. On a careful reading of R. 8(a) we are of opinion that it was intended to apply only to those motor lorries laden with goods meant for immediate export which passed out of the municipal limits through the export barrier along with the goods within a fixed time. It is not meant to apply to those motor lorries which unload goods within the municipal limits. Under R. 2 the toll is to be paid on entry into the toll limits. The declaration required by R. 8, however, is that the goods are meant for immediate export from the municipal limits. That the lorry laden with the goods is to pass out of those limits is made further clear by the last portion of the rule which requires that the person incharge must reach the export barrier with the motor lorry carrying the goods and must do so within half an hour from the time of the issue of the transit pass. The period of half an hour appears to have been fixed keeping in view the distance to be travelled from the import barrier to the export barrier. The intention apparently was that the motor lorry to which the rule applied should after entering the municipal limits pass out of the same with the least possible delay. The period of half an hour appears to have been fixed keeping in view the distance to be travelled from the import barrier to the export barrier. The intention apparently was that the motor lorry to which the rule applied should after entering the municipal limits pass out of the same with the least possible delay. Before the appellant could claim the benefit of the rule for its own lorries, therefore, it was necessary for it to satisfy the Board that its lorries reached the export barrier within the time limited in the rule. It is conceded on behalf of the appellant that the railway station at Saharanpur being situated within the municipal limits of that town the lorries of the appellant did not go outside those limits at all. The goods they carried were unloaded within the municipal limits at the railway station in order to be booked by rail. The goods could remain lying at the railway station for an indefinite period and could in no case leave the municipal limits of Saharanpur within the period of half an hour from the time when they passed the import barrier. We think that the benefit of R. 8 cannot in these circumstances be claimed in respect of those lorries. 7. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the rule only required the export barrier to be reached within the period of half an hour and not the limits of the Municipal Board. The export barrier in the present case was the barrier situated near the railway station. The fact that it was situated within the municipal limits was due only to convenience. There was no other barrier on that side which could be called an export barrier. The only barrier situated there was, therefore, the import barrier for goods entering the municipal limits and export barrier for goods leaving those limits. The appellant, it was urged, could not be allowed to suffer because the Municipal Board had not provided an export barrier on that side situated just on the boundary line. We find it difficult to accept this argument. The expression "barrier of export" has not been defined in the rules but from the fact that it has been used in R. 8 only, we think it clearly follows that it means the barrier after passing which the lorry would no longer be within the municipal limits. We find it difficult to accept this argument. The expression "barrier of export" has not been defined in the rules but from the fact that it has been used in R. 8 only, we think it clearly follows that it means the barrier after passing which the lorry would no longer be within the municipal limits. The barrier at the railway station does not appear to be such a barrier because even after passing through it while the lorry is at the railway station it is still within the municipal limits. As going outside the municipal limits by passing through an export barrier is an essential requisite of R. 8 the appellant cannot found its claim to the benefit of the rule on the ground that a real export barrier has not been provided on that side of the city. 8. Reference was made on behalf of the appellant to R. 3-A of the Model Rules to be found at page 505 of the Municipal Manual and particularly to Form A of those rules at page 503. The appellant cannot get any advantage from R. 3-A because it is not applicable to the Municipal Board of Saharanpur. Form A, as its contents show, relates to goods meant for immediate export by rail. There is no reference to this form in R. 8, which, as we have shown, relates only to goods meant for immediate export by motor lorries. 9. section 128(1)(vii) of the UP Municipalities Act of 1916 empowers the Board to levy "a toll on vehicles and other conveyances, animals, and laden coolies entering the municipality". Cl. (viii) of the same sub-section empowers it to levy "an octroi on goods or animal brought within the municipality for consumption or use therein". 'Octroi' is thus levied on goods of a particular kind while 'toll' is levied on carriers of goods including vehicles. It is contended for the appellant that the terminal toll charged by the Saharanpur Municipality though it professes to be a toll on vehicles is really an octroi on goods because it is calculated with reference to the weight and quantity of goods carried by the vehicles. It is contended for the appellant that the terminal toll charged by the Saharanpur Municipality though it professes to be a toll on vehicles is really an octroi on goods because it is calculated with reference to the weight and quantity of goods carried by the vehicles. It is pointed out that as an octroi the tax must be held to be invalid because it is being charged not in respect of goods brought for consumption within the municipal limits but in respect of goods which are to be exported out of those limits. A toll on laden vehicles does not, however, ceases to be a toll and become an octroi simply because it is to be calculated with reference to the nature and quantity of the goods with which the vehicle is laden. The toll has to be calculated on some basis and that basis need not be uniform in respect of all vehicles even of a particular kind. The mere fact that the article laden on the vehicle is made the basis of the calculation cannot, in our opinion, affect the nature of the tax. That depends on the terms of the rules imposing the tax as well as on the power in the exercise of which the tax is levied. The Bye-laws framed by the Municipal Boards of Almora & Hardwar provided for levying a toll on vehicles carrying passengers. The toll was calculated on the basis of the number and kind of passengers carried by the vehicles. The validity of the toll was questioned on the ground that it was being levied not on the vehicles but on the passengers, but the contention was rejected in Emperor v. Har Datta, 1936 ALJ 962 : 1936 AWR 840 and Municipal Board Hardwar v. Raghubir Singh, 1958 ALJ 170. 10. It was also argued by the learned counsel that by its very nature a toll is something which is charged for some service rendered or amenity provided. In the present case it can be said that the terminal toll in question was being levied because the Municipal Board provided roads which were used by the lorries carrying the goods. The lorries traversing the roads would be using the roads irrespective of the nature or value of the goods they carried. In the present case it can be said that the terminal toll in question was being levied because the Municipal Board provided roads which were used by the lorries carrying the goods. The lorries traversing the roads would be using the roads irrespective of the nature or value of the goods they carried. A toll assessed on the nature and value of the goods, it is urged, cannot be a toll because it bears no proportion to the service rendered. There, however, appears no warrant for the proposition that a toll must bear a particular proportion to the service rendered or amenity provided. 11. The validity of R. 8 is challenged on the ground of invidious discrimination. The argument is that no distinction can be made between goods exported by lorries and goods exported by rail, and that there is therefore no justification for restricting the scope of the exception provided for in R. 8 to goods exported by lorries alone. It is urged that there is no reasonable basis for this discrimination. The contention is not acceptable. When rules are framed for levying a tax and providing exemptions regard must be had for facility of realisation and prevention of evasion. R. 8 provides for transit passes in respect of lorries ex-parting goods because there appears to be no difficulty in enforcing the rule and in ensuring that it is not abused. As soon as the lorry reaches the import barrier a declaration is obtained that the goods are intended for immediate export. Within the limited period of half an hour the lorry with the goods must pass the export barrier without there being any sorting or change of bulk in the goods. These conditions can easily be enforced. The same considerations cannot apply to goods which are taken on lorries to the railway station for export by rail. In the case of those goods nothing could be done if they were disposed of or consumed after passing the barrier while they were lying at the railway station, which is within municipal limits. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no reasonable ground for differentiating between goods exported by lorries and goods exported by rail. In the case of those goods nothing could be done if they were disposed of or consumed after passing the barrier while they were lying at the railway station, which is within municipal limits. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no reasonable ground for differentiating between goods exported by lorries and goods exported by rail. R. 8 cannot, in our opinion, be struck down on the ground of discrimination simply because its application is confined to goods carried by motor lorries and is not extended to goods exported by rail. 12. Mr. Justice Mehrotra was therefore, justified in taking the view that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of R. 8 and that the toll which was being realised from it was not invalid in any manner. 13. In this view of the case the question whether R. 8 was severable from the other rules does not arise and need not be gone into. 14. The petition of the appellant was, therefore, rightly dismissed. The appeal must fail. It is dismissed with costs.