Judgment S. Shamsul Hasan, J. 1. All the four writ applications are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in all these writ applications are transport operators who have been saddled with a notice contained in Annexure 2 in C. W. J. C. No.1820 of 1980 and in Annexure-1 of rest of the writ applications. By this notice the petitioners have been directed to pay the commercial tax assessed by the Commercial taxes Department, of course, after deducting the amount already paid in regard to the concerned petitioner. The petitioners had filed applications before the appropriate authority seeking to compound the amount payable by way of taxes and prayed for paying the levy in accordance with law. On rejection of these applications, the impugned anuexures were issued. 3. There is no dispute that the provision to impose a fixed levy in respect of an assessed tax was introduced by an amendment to the Bihar Taxation on passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961. Sec.8 of the aforesaid Act, as set out in the counter affidavit Sled oa behalf of the State of Bihar, is as follows :- "8. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sec.3, the State Government may where it considers expedient that the maintenance of accounts for the purpose of calculation of tax by way of assessment will cause undue hardship permit an owner or a class of owners or a vehicle or a class of vehicles to pay fixed fee in lieu of tax payable by him at such rates and on such conditions as may be prescribed. " By this amendment it has been stated that the facility of paying a fixed levy was introduced. Following this amendment, a circular, brought on the record by the petitioners as Annexure-2 (Annexure-3 in C. W. J. C. No.1820 of 1980), is said to have been issued by the authorities on 14-2-1978 under the signature of the commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Patna. Following this amendment, a circular, brought on the record by the petitioners as Annexure-2 (Annexure-3 in C. W. J. C. No.1820 of 1980), is said to have been issued by the authorities on 14-2-1978 under the signature of the commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Patna. In this circular clause 7 reads as follows :-The petitioners rely on this clause of the circular to enforce their ciaims of paying 8 levy in lieu of the assessed tax 4 The learned counsel for the State came out with an interesting submission that this circular is illegal and inoperative because it endows Sec.8 of the Act aforesaid, after the amendment, with an element of the retrospectivity which would be done only by proper amendment. The submission is right but no counter affidavit has been filed by the State to show whether the circular has been treated in the manner as stated by the learned counsel and that facility of the retrospectivity, as indicated in the circular, was never extended to any other person. He also submitted that the amendment to Sec.8 of the Act, above-mentioned indicates that the facility of paying a fixed levy cannot be extended to such assessees who have already been assessed. This submission may appear to be correct as far as the application of Sec.8 of the Act is concerned but the circular, if it is applicable and operative, will not justify such an interpretation. In fact, it will, perhaps, become operative in spite of the assessment having been done. 5. Learned counsel for the State has, in the counter affidavit filed today, in which he had brought the enactment on record as stated above, also annexed an order being Annexure a in all applications by which the prayer for paying the fixed levy was rejected. On the face of it, Annexure-a does not state anything with regard to the applicability and the effect of the circular mentioned above. I, therefore, feel that this matter should be examined afresh by the authorities before finally disposing of the application for payment of fixed levy filed by the petitioners. 6. The impugned Annexures therefore, in all the applications are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority to re-examine the applications filed by the petitioners for payment of fixed levy in the light of Sec.8 of the act, as it now stands, and the circular dated 14th February, 1978. 6. The impugned Annexures therefore, in all the applications are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority to re-examine the applications filed by the petitioners for payment of fixed levy in the light of Sec.8 of the act, as it now stands, and the circular dated 14th February, 1978. It is only after passing the final order on these petitions that fresh order with regard to recovery of assessed tax can be passed. I wish to make it clear that I have not decided any question either of law or fact on merit and I have quashed the impugned orders to enable the authorities to re-examine the whole question and pass fresh orders in the light of the observations made above. I would further clarify that initially no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State at all and only a small affidavit has been filed in regard to the matter stated in the order impugned. 7. In the result, all the four writ applications are allowed as indicated above but without costs. Decided accordingly.