JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - This special appeal which is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 1 under Art. 226 of the Constitution raises the question of the validity or otherwise of the Teh-bazari Traffic Tax imposed by the appellant Town Area Committee, Bhogaon. 2. The material facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent Company plies about 30 motor-trucks every day from Delhi to Kanpur and from Agra to Kanpur. The journies are performed on the Grand Trunk Road and the Agra Road which are national highways. Both the above mentioned roads pass through the local limits of the appellant Town Area. With effect from the 1st July, 1966, the appellant Town Area Committee level the Teh-Bazari Traffic Tax at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per trip on trucks of respondent No. 1. Every time the trucks of respondent No. 1 cross the barriers put up by the appellant Town Area at the boundaries of its local limits, they are charged Rs. 2.00 towards this tax. 3. Rules relating to the imposition of this tax after sanction by the Prescribed Authority were published in the Gazette of the 14th June, 1966. Notification sanctioning the imposition of the tax with effect from the 1st of July. 1966, was published in the U. P. Gazette on the 23rd June, 1966. The respondent-Company challenged the imposition and levy of the tax by means of a writ petition which was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court by his judgment dated 9th August, 1967. The impugned notification dated 14th June, 1966 and the 23rd June, 1966, imposing the Teh-Bazari Traffic tax were quashed and the appellant Town Area Committee was directed not to enforce those notifications. 4. The "Rules" referred to above is sub-divided into two parts, the first part of which consists only of two rules. Rule 1 states that the tax imposed would be known as the Teh-bazari Tax Traffic". Rule 2 declares that the tax was being imposed under Section 14 Sub-sec. (2) (b) of the U. P. Town Areas Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. Rule 1 states that the tax imposed would be known as the Teh-bazari Tax Traffic". Rule 2 declares that the tax was being imposed under Section 14 Sub-sec. (2) (b) of the U. P. Town Areas Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. It provides that the tax would be leviable for of public roads and public places within the Town Area on taxis, motor-cars, lorries, buses, motor-trucks laden with goods or passengers as well as on new cars and new chassis either meant for hire and proceeding for sale or those with a temporary registration. According to Rule 3, no variety of traffic within the limits of the Town Area could leave those limits without paying the tax, which was being imposed under Section 14(2) (b) of the Act, according to the rates mentioned in the Schedule and at the places fixed for its recovery. Rule 4 provides that for the collection of the Tah-bazari tax imposed under Section 14(2) (b) barriers would be placed under the control of the Town Area employees. According to Rule 5, employees of the Town Area were authorised to prevent the traffic from leaving the Town Area limits without paying the tax which had been levied under Section 14(2) (b). Rule 6 states that the expression "Public place" and "Public road" shall have the same meaning as mentioned in Section 2(7) of the Act. Rule 7 provides that the powers of the vehicles would be liable for the payment of the tax and goes on to state that those responsible for driving the vehicles into the limits of the Town Area and driving it out of the limits would be for the purposes of the tax treated as the owners of the vehicle. According to Rule 8, vehicles are free to enter the Town Area but would not be at liberty to leave its limits without payment of the tax at the rates provided for in the Schedule. It further provides that if any attempt is made to leave the limits of the Town Area without paying the tax, those responsible for payment of the tax would be liable to he prosecuted under Section 299(1) of the P. Municipalities Act hereinafter referred to as the Municipalities Act as extended to the Town Areas. It further provides that if any attempt is made to leave the limits of the Town Area without paying the tax, those responsible for payment of the tax would be liable to he prosecuted under Section 299(1) of the P. Municipalities Act hereinafter referred to as the Municipalities Act as extended to the Town Areas. Under Rule 12, the tax is payable at the barriers set up by the Town Area for collection of the tax. By Rule 13, provision is made for setting up of barriers for collection of the tax at three different places. The first barrier which described as the "Chauki" according to this rule was to be the Kanpur Gate on the Grand Trunk Road, the second Chauki was to be at Agra Gate on the Agra Road and the third at the Gate on the Grand Trunk Road. Ac-cording to the Schedule of which reference has been made in the various rules and which forms part of it, four classes of vehicles have been made liable to the tax, viz. (1) motor lorries or buses carryrog barat parties or tourists on a contract basis, (2) tractors including trollies, (3) motor-thelas and trucks and (4) chasis or new cars meant for hire and proceeding for sale or those moving under a temporary registration. The Schedule states that apart from the four classes of vehicles mentioned therein, no other vehicle would be liable to the tax. 5. It was urged before the learned single Judge on behalf of the respondent-Company that in its true nature and character the tax. though it is described as Teh-bazari and purports to have been levied under Section 14(2)(b) the Act, was not Teh-bazari tax at all. The contention found favour with the learned single Judge. On behalf of the appellant Town Area Committee, learned counsel submitted that the view taken by the learned single Judge was not correct and he has supported the imposition of the tax under Section 14(2) (b) of the Act. 6. Section 14 of the Act is concerned with the taxing powers of Town Areas. Sub-sec. (1) thereof mentions various kinds of taxes which Town Areas are authorised to impose. Sub-sec. (2) of Section 14 runs as follows:- "The Committee may also impose the following taxes and fee : (a) ...................... (b) Teh-bazari leviable for the use of public land or public roads. (c) ................ Sub-sec. (1) thereof mentions various kinds of taxes which Town Areas are authorised to impose. Sub-sec. (2) of Section 14 runs as follows:- "The Committee may also impose the following taxes and fee : (a) ...................... (b) Teh-bazari leviable for the use of public land or public roads. (c) ................ (d) ..............." The word "Teh-bazari" has not been defined in the Act. It has also not been defined in the Municipalities Act to which recourse is permissible by reason of Section 2 Sub-sec. (16) which provides that "words and expressions not defined in this Act but used in the Municipalities Act, 1916, shall have the meaning assigned to them in that Act:" 7. Our attention during the course of the hearing of the appeal was invited to the Model bye-laws framed by the State Government for use by the Municipal Boards, in exercising powers under Section 298-E (b) of the Municipalities Act. Those Model bye-laws are described as "Teh-bazari bye-laws." It was contended that aid might be taken from those Model bye-laws for finding out the connotation of the word "Teh-bazari". The Model bye-laws disclose merely the interpretation by the executive Government of the word "Teh-bazari" and to our mind cannot be pressed in service for the purposes of finding out the scope of that expression. In the absence of the legislature having defined the word "Teh-bazari", it would be the dictionary meaning which must he assigned to that word. 8. According to Aiyer's law lexicon (page 1263) "Teh-Bazari" means "groud-rent of a stall in a market." According to the Dictionary "Hindustani and English" by John Shakespear (1817 Edition page 93) "Bazar" means "a market". According to that dictionary also "Teh-bazari" means "ground-rent of a stall in the market" (page 250). According to H. H. Wilson's Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms and of Useful words occurring in Official Documents relating to the Administration of the Government of British India", "Teh-bazari" is "a tax or charge levied on the sellers of articles in a bazar, either in money or kind, as the rent of the ground on which their shops or stalls are placed" (page 500 1855 Edition). "Bazar" according to H. H. Wilson' is "a market, a daily market, a market place". "Bazar" according to H. H. Wilson' is "a market, a daily market, a market place". According to "Farahang Asfia" Part I "Bazar" means Kharid va farokht ki Jagah, haat, painth, Chauhatta sook" (Page 255, 1908 Edition) and "Teh-bazari" means "Voh mahsool jo bazar nashino, Jaise tarkari faroso our bisation vagairah se liya jave. Lekin mohavra haal me bazar ka aam mahsool ko kahte hain. Isme khwah dookanon ke aage takhat bichchane wale hon khwah jamin par baithne wale hon" (Page 512). According to any of the definitions mentioned above. "Teh-bazari" must be directly related to the occupation of some ground in a market or public place for the purpose of carrying on some trade or practising some calling and partakes of the nature of ground-rent. 9. An examination of the various provisions of the Rules to which reference has been made above in some details shows that motor vehicles have been made liable to the tax merely for passing over the public streets and places situate within limits of the Toy. Area when they leave the Town Area territory. The motor-vehicles may be loaded or occupied to their full capacity when they enter the Town Area and pick up neither any passengers nor load any goods within the Town Area and yet they would under the bye-laws be liable for the tax. The tax thus has no relation to the use by the vehicles of any market or public place for carrying on any trade or sale of any service. We have consequently, no hesitation in holding that the tax cannot he supported as "Teh-bazari" leviable by the Town Areas under. Section 14(2) (b) of the Act. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant in the alternative contends that though the Rules purported to in pose the tax in exercise of powers under Section 14(2) (b) of the Act, the tax could be supported as one which the Town Area Committee was empowered to impose in exercise of powers under Section 14(1) (g) of the Act read with Section 128 Sub-sec. (1) clause (xiv) of the Municipalities Act. It was urged that if the Town Area Committee had power to levy the tax under some provision of law, the mere fact that it had purported to do so under an incorrect provision could not effect the wires of the imposition. (1) clause (xiv) of the Municipalities Act. It was urged that if the Town Area Committee had power to levy the tax under some provision of law, the mere fact that it had purported to do so under an incorrect provision could not effect the wires of the imposition. It was submitted that Section 14(1) (g) gives power to the Town Area Committee to impose any tax which the Municipal Boards could levy under Section 128(1) of the Municipalities Act. Section 128(1) (xiv) empowers Municipal Board, subject to any general rules or special orders of the State Government in that behalf, to impose in the whole or any part of a municipality "any other tax which the State Legislature has power to impose in the , State under the Constitution." 11. Reliance was placed on Entry 57 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution which runs as follows :- "Taxes on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads, including tramcars subject to the provisions of entry 35 of List III." It was submitted that the tax is supportable as a tax on mechanically propelled vehicles and had been legally imposed by the appellant Town Area Committee in exercise of powers under Section 14(1) (g) of the Act read with Section 128(1) (xiv) of the Municipalities Act and Entry 57 of List II of Schedule VIth of the Constitution. In support of the submission that even if the taxation which purports to he under Section 14(2) (b) of the Act was not valid under that provision but the Town Area had power to impose the tax under some other provisions of law its validity must be up-held, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1958 S. C. 232 and on Afzal Ullah v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1964 S. C. 264 which followed it Learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on Management of D. C. Dewan Mohideen Sahib and Sons v. United Beedi Workers' Union, A.I.R. 1966 S. C. 370- and Buddha v. Municipal Board, Allahabad, A.I.R. 1952 All. 753 F. B. On the other hand, on be half of respondent No. 1 it was urged that since not only in the preamble but in each clause of the Rules impugned reference has been specifically made to Section 14(2)(b) of the Act if the imposition of the tax was held unsupportable under that provision, the tax must be shuck down and its validity could not be upheld with reference to any other power of the Town Area Committee, which it might have under the Act. Reliance in support of this submission was placed on Ram Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1957 S. C. 18 in that case the Supreme Court was concerned with the legality of an assessment list prepared under Section 15 of the Act showing the assessment of the appellant to a tax under clause (1) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 14. The High Court had held that the assessment was valid under clause (g) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 14 and it was therefore unnecessary to consider whether the tax could be legally imposed under clause (f) of Section 14(1). It was held by the Supreme Court that the list prepared under Section 15 of the Act must have shown the appellant having been assessed to a certain amount of tax under clause (f) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 14 and the assessment must have been confirmed on that basis by the District Magistrate. It was held that the legality of the tax imposed on the appellant in that case must be considered with reference to clause (1) under which the assessment had actually been made, and a different clause under which the assessment might have been validly made could not be pressed in aid, in support of its validity. 12. The learned single Judge before whom also an attempt was made on behalf of the appellant Town Area to support the validity of the taxation as a tax on motor vehicles held that the validity of the tax must be tested with reference to the, provision of the Act under which the Town Area purported to have acted and it was not open to the Town Area Committee to support the validity of the taxation under Section 14(1)(g) read with Section 128(1).(xiv) of the Municipalities Act. The learned single Judge, however, did proceed to consider on merits the submissions made. The learned single Judge, however, did proceed to consider on merits the submissions made. Since for the reasons to follow we have come to the conclusion that the impugned taxation cannot be considered to be a tax on motor vehicles covered by Entry 57 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, we do not consider it necessary to resolve, in the present case, the controversy as to whether or not it is open to the appellant to support the legality of the taxation on the basis of a provision of law officer than Section 14(2)(b) of the Act. 13. Section 128(1) (iv) is a specific provision in the Municipalities Act empowering the Municipal Boards to in pose "a tax on vehicles and other conveyances plying for hire or kept within the municipality or on boats moored therein." If Municipal Boards desire to impose a tax on motor vehicles, they can do so only under Sec. 128(1)(iv) of the Municipalities Act subject to the limitations mentioned in that Provision. It is not open to the Municipal Boards to impose a tax on motor vehicles under the general power of taxation contained in Section 128(1) (xiv). Since the Municipal Boards have no power themselves to impose a tax on motor vehicles in exercise of powers under Section 128(1) (xiv) of the Municipalities Act, it is obvious that the Town Areas cannot impose such a tax under Section 14(1) (g) of the Act read with Section 128(1)(xiv) of the Municipalities Act and Entry 57 of List II of Schedule" VII of the Constitution. 14. It was lastly urged that the tax impugned was in substance a tax on goods and passengers carried on envisaged by Entry 56 of List II of the seventh Schedule of the Constitution. motor vehicles by road, of the nature. The tax, it was submitted, had been validly imposed under Section 14(1)(g) read with Section 128(1) (xiv) of the Municipalities Act and Entry 56. Before we proceed to consider the validity of argument in the nature of a preliminary objection to the acceptance of this contention. 15. On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that the powers exercised by the Town Areas under Section 14(1) (g) of the Act read with Section 128(1) (xiv) of the Municipalities Act is a power delegated by the State Legislature. 15. On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that the powers exercised by the Town Areas under Section 14(1) (g) of the Act read with Section 128(1) (xiv) of the Municipalities Act is a power delegated by the State Legislature. Once the power to impose a particular tax has been exercised by the State Legislature itself, the delegate Town Area cannot exercise that power because that would result in double taxation of the same subject-matter. Our attention was invited to the U. P. Motor Cadi (yatri-kar) Adhiniyam (U. P. Act No. VIII of 1962) and it was submitted that a tax on passengers carried by stage carriages had already been levied by the State Legislature under Sec. 3(1) of U. P. Act No. VIII of 1962 and consequently it no longer remained open to the appellant Town Area to impose a tax on passengers carried by road on motor vehicles. The contention is, in our opinion, unsound. No constitutional provision has been brought to our notice incapacitating Municipal Boards or Town Areas from imposing a tax for their own purposes which had already been imposed by the State Legislature for the purposes of the State. However inconvenient a double taxation of the same subject-matter may be, the Constitution does not debar it. A question similar to one raised before us arose for consideration in Cantonment Board, Poona v. Western India Theatres Ltd., A.I.R. 1954 Bombay 261. The relevant facts giving rise to this decision were that the Poona Cantonment Board had imposed a "theatre tax" upon shows given at cinema houses located within the limits of the Poona Cantonment. It purports to do so under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act as then in force which stood as follows :- 'The Board may with the previous sanctions of the Local Government impose any tax which under any enactment for the time being in force may be imposed in any municipality in the Province wherein the Cantonment is situated." In support of its power to impose the tax, it relied upon Sec.73 Sub-sec. (xiv) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, which ran as follows :-- "Any other tax (not being a toll on motor vehicles and trailers, save as provided by Section 14 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1935), which under the Government of India Act, 1935, the Provincial Legislature has power to impose in the Province." Under Entry 50 of List II of the Provincial Legislative List which stood as follows : "Taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling" The State Legislature could impose tax on entertainments. It was contended before the High Court of Bombay that an entertainment duty or tax had already been levied by the Bombay Government upon all entertainments given in cinema houses under the provisions of the Bombay Entertainments Duly Act, 1923 and it was consequently no longer permissible for the Cantonment Board to levy another entertainment duty because this would lead to double taxation. The contention was repelled by Bavdekar and Chainani, JJ. in the following words :- "But we fail to understand that there is anything in our Constitution which prevents double taxation being levied. It is quite true that if ordinarily a provincial Legislature wanted to levy for itself a tax, it would not pass two laws levying two different duties in respect of the same subject-matter, in this case an entertainment. There is nothing to prevent the Provincial Legislature from charging in respect of entertainments as much tax as it likes. It would not therefore dream passing of two Acts levying two separate entertainments duties. But instances are not wanting in this country in which taxes, are levied twice upon the same thing, once for the benefit of the Provincial Government and in the second instance for the benefit of the Local Self Government bodies. for example, the District Local Board or the Municipality. But instances are not wanting in this country in which taxes, are levied twice upon the same thing, once for the benefit of the Provincial Government and in the second instance for the benefit of the Local Self Government bodies. for example, the District Local Board or the Municipality. Two instances which occur to one at once are that of land revenue and local fund cess and the urban property tax levied in the City of Bombay for the purpose of Provincial Government and the house tax which is levied by the Municipality at Bombay for its own finances." The decision of the Bombay High Court in Cantonment Board, Poona (supra) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Western India Theatres Ltd. v. Cantonmtnt Board, Poona, A.I.R. 1959 S. C. 582 was followed with approval by Mehar Singh and A. N. Grover, JJ. in Ram Pratap v. State of Punjab, A. I.R. 1963 Punjab 345. The view takes by us also finds support from a decision by P. V. Dixit, C. J. and R. J. Bhave, J. in Devkumarsinghji Kastwchandji v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1967 M. P. 268. 16. On merits, the contention that the impugned tax is a tax on goods and passengers carried on motor vehicles by road of the nature contemplated by Entry 56 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution is without any force. It is well established that neither the name given to a tax nor the form of the Legislative provisions is determinative of the true nature of the taxation. It is the pith and substance of the taxation provision that must be examined to ascertain the real and true character of the taxation. The tax in question has no co-relation either with the freight or fare charged for the vehicles concerned or with the number of passengers and amount of goods carried by it. The Schedule forming part of the impugned Rules shows that motor lorries and buses carrying Barat parties or tourists, tractors with trollies and chassis and new cars meant for hire or with a temporary registration have to pay tax at the rate of Rupee 1/- every time they cross the territorial limits of the appellant Town Area. Trucks and motor thelas have to pay a tax at the rate of Rs. 2/- per trip when that, cross the limits of the Town Area. Trucks and motor thelas have to pay a tax at the rate of Rs. 2/- per trip when that, cross the limits of the Town Area. The tax has to be paid at the flat rates mentioned above irrespective of the number of passengers or quantity or weight of goods carried. The motor vehicle conceived may be carrying a single tourist just across the borders of the Town Area to the adjoining village from whom a fare of a few paisas has been charged and yet the tax chargeable will be a rupee. A tractor with trolly may be carrying straw or fuel-wood to the adjoining village worth only a few paisa, nonetheless the tax liability for an amount of Rupee 1/- per trip will be incurred. It is thus obvious that the tax is wholly unrelated with the passengers or goods carried by road by the motor vehicles concerned. We consequently find no difficulty in holding that the tax challenged cannot be supported under Entry 56 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. 17. If Rule 2 of Part I of the Rules in question in alone treated as the charging provision, it shows that the tax is a tax for use of public places and public streets including national highways which vest in the Central Government under the provisions of the National highways Act. Even the State Legislature is incompetent to levy such a tax. Rule 3 however, lends colour to Rule 2 and the two rules must be read together for ascertaining the true incidence of the taxation. A taxi, motor-truck or tractor with a trolly may continue to use the public places and public streets within the limits of the Town Area as long as they last without incurring any liability for the tax. They are rendered liable to taxation only when they cross the limits of the Town Area. The liability for taxation arises only when motor vehicle a of the type mentioned in the Schedule or in Rule 2 or Rule 3 cross the limits of a Town Area. It is the exit of the motor vehicles concerned from the Town Area limits which attracts the liability to taxation. If there is no exist of the motor vehicle from the Town Area limits, there is so en forcible liability to taxation. It is the exit of the motor vehicles concerned from the Town Area limits which attracts the liability to taxation. If there is no exist of the motor vehicle from the Town Area limits, there is so en forcible liability to taxation. The occasion for incurring the liability to taxation is, or to borrow the words used by Patanjali Sastri, C. J. In The State of Bombay v. The United Motors (India) Ltd, A.I.R. 1953 S. C. 253 "the taxable event" is the exit of the motor vehicle from the Town Area. Under none of the Entries of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution is even the State Legislature competent to impose such a tax: 18. No attempt was made during the hearing of the appeal before us to support the validity of the tax under any provision of law other than those discussed above. 19. For the reasons given, we find no substance in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed with costs to the contesting respondent.