JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - Om Prakash Gupta and others have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking certiorari for quashing of the notices dated 16-11-1986, 18-11-1986,25-11 -1986 and 30-11-1985 as also the assessment order dated 9-12-1985 issued and made under U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri-Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). The aforesaid notices were issued on 1. Mohd. Israr s/o Mohd Yasin 48, Gola Kuan, Sohrab Gate, Meerut. Vehicle No. U.H.N. 1022 2. Mohd. Sabir s/o Mohd. Yasin, 48, Gola Kuan, Sohrab Gate, Meerut. Vehicle No. U.H.N. 622 3. Mohd. Aziz s/o Mohd. Israr, 48, Gola Kuan, Sohrab Gate, Meerut. Vehicle No. U.H.N. 1122 4. Om Prakash Gupta, s/o Sohan Lal, Surajkund Road, Meerut. Vehicle No. U.S.C. 6000 2-3. U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri-Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 was enacted by the U.P. State Legislature in the year 1962 providing for the levy of a tax on passengers carried in certain classes of public service vehicles in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In exercise of the power conferred by S. 30 of the said Adhiniyam, the State has framed U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri-Kar) Niyamawali, 1962. 4. Section 3 is the charging section, the relevant portion of which is as under: 'there shall be levied and paid to the State Government a tax on every passenger carried by a stage carriage at a rate equivalent to five per cent of fare payable by such passenger to the operator of the stage carriage in respect of his journey in the State." 5. Under sub-s. (2) of S. 3, it was provided that the rate of tax could be increased but would not exceed twenty per cent of the fare. Sub-sections (3) and (4) were inserted by the U.P. Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972. By this Act, Sub-ss. (3) and (4) were added to S. 3. It provided that from and after the commencement of this Section, there shall further be levied and paid to the State Government an additional tax on every passenger carried by a stage carriage, not being a stage carriage plying exclusively within the limits of city or municipality, at the rate of ten paise on the fare for such a journey where the ordinary fare for such journey is not less than Rs. 1.50. Section 5 provides for method of collection of tax. 1.50. Section 5 provides for method of collection of tax. The two methods prescribed are by way of lump sum or by way of submission of record. Sub-section (4) of S. 3 lays down that both the methods are applicable to the tax to be realised under Sections 3(1) and 3(3) namely, the additional tax. In order to give effect to S. 5, the-State Government has framed R. 5 which deals with lump sum agreement. Under R. 5, an application is required to be made for acceptance of a lump sum in lieu of the amount of tax which is payable on the basis of actual number of passengers carried from one place to another. 6. So far as the question of payment of additional tax is concerned, which we are considering in this writ petition, the case of the respondents is that when the bus operators execute agreement under R. 5 of the Niyamawali and pays lump sum payment of Yatrikar, if he wants to make payment of additional Yatrikar also in lump sum, he is entitled to execute an agreement under R. 5(4-A) of the Adhiyam as well. This R. 5 (4A) is as under : - "(4-A) The lump sum payable in respect of the additional tax under sub-s. (3) of S. 3 shall be 25 per cent of the amount payable under sub-r. (3) and this amount shall also be payable along with the lump sum amount of tax under sub-r. (3). (5) The lump sum agreed upon may be paid at such time and in such instalments not exceeding three, as may be agreed upon between the parties." 7. In the instant case, the petitioners have not entered into any agreement for payment of yatrikar. Consequently, it is agreed on both the ends that the additional tax is payable on the basis of the records. 8. In Writ Petn. 368 of 1977, Khairati Lal v. State of U .P. decided on 31st March, 1982, this Court held that the additional charge under sub-rule (4-A) of R.S.J.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri-Kar) Niyamawali, 1962 could not be levied on those operators who were paying additional tax on the way bill system. In the instant case, the petitioners have claimed that they have not entered into any agreement with the State of U.P. for payment of additional tax. That position has been admitted in the counter affidavit as well. In the instant case, the petitioners have claimed that they have not entered into any agreement with the State of U.P. for payment of additional tax. That position has been admitted in the counter affidavit as well. Consequently, the question as to whether there could be an agreement in respect of payment of additional charge under sub-r. (4A) of R. 5 does not arise for decision. Further, whether the liability of payment of additional charge is automatic and does not call for any decision by us. 9. The petitioners have alleged that they have deposited additional tax on the basis of returns submitted by them and since the same had been accepted the Passenger Tax Officer had no power to issue the impugned notices under S. 8(1) of the Adhiniyam. Section 8(1) recites as under : - "Procedure in the absence of return or when (it) is incorrect or incomplete. (1) Where no returns have been submitted by the operator in respect of any stage carriage for any month or portion thereof or where the returns submitted by the operator in respect of any stage carriage for any month or portion thereof appear to the Tax Officer to be incorrect or incomplete he shall, after giving the operator a reasonable opportunity in the former case of making his representation, if any, and, in the latter case of establishing the correctness and completeness of the returns submitted by him, determine the sum payable to the State Government by the operator by way of tax for such month or portion thereof." 10. The assertion made by the petitioners further is that the notices have been issued by the Passenger Tax Officer on the direction of the Deputy Transport Commissioner. The assertion made by the petitioners further is that the notices have been issued by the Passenger Tax Officer on the direction of the Deputy Transport Commissioner. The relevant portion of the Circular issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, which has been relied upon by the petitioners is as under : - " lgkjuiqj nsgyh ds okgu iqu% esjB esa dj nsus ds fy, vf/kd`r dj fn, x, gSa vr% ifjogu vk;qDr u ;k=hdj vf/kdkjh esjB dh fufnZ"V fd;k fd os lgkjuiqj dh Hkkafr muls 25 izfr'kr vfrfjDr ;k=hdj olwy djsa ifjogu vk;qDr us ;g Hkh dgk fd tgka vfrfjDr ;k=hdj 25 izfr'kr ls de gS ogka ds ;k=hdj vf/kdkjh okgu Lokfe;ksa dks vuqfpr ykHk igqpk jgs gSa muds fo:) dMd dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA D;ksafd vc fdjk;k c<+us ls clksa ij dksbZ O;fDr lk/kkj.k rFkk 1@& :i;s ls de fVdV ij ugha pyrk gSA " 11. The petitioners' contention made before us was that the proceedings initiated on the basis of the Circular of the Deputy Transport Commissioner is ultra vires the Act and, therefore, they are liable to be quashed. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have denied that the petitioners had submitted weekly or monthly returns,as was required from them under S. 6 of the Adhiniyam. 12. In para 3(c) of the counter affidavit the case of respondent is that out of see hundred bus operators operating in Meerut Zone 95 per cent had executed lump and agreement under sub-rule (4-A) of R. 5 for additional passenger tax and as required by the same they were paying 25 per cent of the total payment of lump sum agreement under R. 5 of the said Niyamawali. 13. In para 3(d) of the counter affidavit, it has been alleged that the petitioners were avoiding to produce way bills as required by Rr. 13(3-A)and 13(4)of the rules. About the persons like the petitioners and those who are not members of the union, the assertion in para 7 of the counter affidavit is as under : - "The bus operators of the petitioner union have recovered addl. passenger tax at the rate of 10 paise per passenger tax for ticket worth Re. 1/- and above, but they have not deposited the total addl. passenger tax on the basis of the total recovery made. passenger tax at the rate of 10 paise per passenger tax for ticket worth Re. 1/- and above, but they have not deposited the total addl. passenger tax on the basis of the total recovery made. They have deposited about 10% of the total amount oi lump sum agreement of passenger tax without submitting the way bills and the return, this is not permissible. The operator are not exempt from maintaining and submitting the records and registers unless the bus operators enter into an agreement for lump sum payment of addl. passenger tax under R.5(4-A). The operators are liable to pay addl. passenger tax on the basis of way bills for each journey of the bus and also required to submit weekly and monthly statements in respect of the tax collected by them." 14. The fact stated in the counter affidavit about non-submission of the return has been denied in the rejoinder. The controversy as to whether the petitioners had filed returns as require by S. 8 is to be decided by the Passenger Tax Officer who has issued the notices to the petitioner. This controversy is not required to be gone into by us. Before us, what was contended was that the Deputy Transport Commissioner had no power to issue any direction calling upon the Passenger Tax Officer to reopen the matters of payment of tax which have finally been concluded as he has no jurisdiction under the Act to do so. 15. We have gone through the writ petition and are unable to uphold the contention that the notices impugned by means of this petition are liable to be quashed on that ground. Sections 8 and 9 are the two provisions under which the Passenger Tax Officer has the authority in law to see whether return had been submitted or not. The question under the Niyamawali to be decided independently is that the Passenger Tax Officer has power under S. 8 or 9 of the Act to call upon the petitioners to appear before him. Section 9 applies to a case of escaped assessment whereas S. 8 deals with the procedure to be adopted in the absence of the returns or when it is incorrect or incomplete. The former section lays down the limitation whereas the subsequent does not. This controversy was considered by a Division Bench in Mohd. Nazirul Haq v. Dy. Section 9 applies to a case of escaped assessment whereas S. 8 deals with the procedure to be adopted in the absence of the returns or when it is incorrect or incomplete. The former section lays down the limitation whereas the subsequent does not. This controversy was considered by a Division Bench in Mohd. Nazirul Haq v. Dy. Transport Commr., 1977 All LJ 39. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the validity of the notices also on the ground that since S. 8 did not apply, the same was invalid on that ground. 16. It was urged on behalf of the State Government that if S. 8 was not applicable the notices could be justified on the basis of S. 9. It was urged that if, while issuing order or notice in exercise of the power, a wrong provision is quoted, it will not invalidate the issuance of the notice to be referable to a jurisdiction which confers validity upon it. 17. As a finding on this fact would be necessary for deciding the question of applicability of Sections 8 and 9, which will be done by the Passenger Tax Officer, we are not required to express our opinion at this stage. 18. What we wish to note is that the Deputy Transport Commissioner has not issued any Circular directing the Passenger Tax Officer to impose 25 per cent of the Yatrikar by way of additional tax. The circular is not a mandate binding on the Passenger Tax Officer. The Passenger Tax Officer is not bound to impose 25 per cent of the additional tax under the same. 19. For what we have said above, we dismiss the writ petition with costs. Interim stay order is vacated.