M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) IN these matters a common question of law arises for consideration though the petitioners in these petitions have come before this court on account of either a demand notice issued calling upon them to pay motor vehicles tax under the Provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act in regard to tractor trailers owned by them and used exclusively for agricultural operations in the light of certain objection said to have been raised by the accountant general of karnataka. In other cases proceedings initiated to bring to tax such vehicles have been tested in appeals under the Provisions of the said act and thereafter final orders passed by the appellate authority have been questioned. ( 2 ) IN all cases the question which falls for determination is whether the tractor strailers used for agricultural operations may be subjected to tax or can be the subject matter of exemption in terms of notification issued by the state government under Section 16 (1) or 16 (2) of the act. ( 3 ) UNDER clause (j) of Section 2 of the taxation Act, words and expression usedbut not defined in that act shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1930 (since repealed and replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ). Section 3 of the taxation act is the charging section. Section 16 of the taxation act provides for exemption or reduction in the rate of tax. Under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the taxation act the state government, if it is of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest to do so, may by notification and subject to such restrictions and the conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt or reduce whether prospectively or retrospectively the tax payable in respect of any calss of motor vehicles, or motor vehicles not used on the roads and further reduce the rate of tax payable in respect of any class of motor vehicles plying on any route or routes specified in the notification. Under Section 16 (2) of the Act, every notification under sub-section (1) shall be laid as soon as may be after it is issued before the state legislative assembly while it is in sessions; for a total period of 30 days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more sessions and if before the expiry of that period, the state legislative assembly makes any modification in the notification or directs that the notification shall not have effect, the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be. ( 4 ) BUT for the purpose of these writ petitions with which we are concerned sub-section (3)is very important and it is as follows: 16 (3 ). "all motor vehicles designed and used solely for carrying on such agricultural operations as may be prescribed shall be exempt from the payment of tax. " ( 5 ) IN the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the motor vehicle is defined to mean any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes such chassis to which a body has not been attached with trailer but does not include vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use of only in factory or in any other enclosed premises. It would be useful to keep in mind that the definition extracted above was the amended definition in the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in bolanl ores ltd. V state of orissa, 1976 (1) SC page 17, wherein it was held that the trailer was not a mechanically propelled vehicle and as such not a motor vehicle. If that is borne in mind the object of Section 16 (3) of taxation act to exempt any class of motor vehicle answering to the description of the definition in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or its successor enactment of 1988 Motor Vehicles Act from exemption in the payment of tax, as long as such motor vehicle is used exclusively for carrying out agricultural operations as prescribed becomes obvious. In the rules framed under the Provisions of the kanataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, Rule 36 provides for the various types of operations which constitute agricultural operations for the purpose of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the taxation act and it is as follows: "for purposes of sub-section (3) of Section 16, agricultural operations shall mean tilling, sowing, weeding, harvesting, crushing of agricultural produce, reclamation and levelling of the land for agriculture, transportation of persons, materials and manure to the agricultural farm, solely for the purpose of agriculture, and transportation of agricultural produce from the agricultural farm, to the house of the owner: provided that for taking the vehicles for repairs, or for a driving test the owner shall obtain a written permission from the regional transport officer. " when the cause of action of the writ petition arose sub-section (3) of Section 16 and Rule 36 of the rules thereunder were in force and the Rule came to be deleted only in the year 1987. Therefore the corresponding amendment deleting sub-section (3) of Section 16 also should have been done simultaneously with the deletion of the rules. That in any event would not alter the position as it existed on the date of cause of action arose to challenge the levy and collection of the tax on motor vehicles used exclusively for agricultural operations. ( 6 ) MR. Daltu, learned high court govt. Pleader, appearing for respondents, state of kanataka and others, contended that the government in the year 1980 had issued notification by which they had fixed the rate of tax payable by the owners of the tractor. It was only in the light of that notification that the accountant general raised the objection and as such the proceedings were initiated demanding additional tax in accordance with the Provisions of the taxation act to bring to tax the vehicles which were exempted by the notification. We do not see how the state government under sub-section (3) of Section 16 derived authority to issue a notification fixing the rate of tax on tractor trailer or motor vehicles used exclusively for agricultural operations when the legislature itself had granted total exemption in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the act. We do not see how the state government under sub-section (3) of Section 16 derived authority to issue a notification fixing the rate of tax on tractor trailer or motor vehicles used exclusively for agricultural operations when the legislature itself had granted total exemption in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the act. Therefore that notification of 1980 bearing No. Ht 390 tmt Bangalore, dated 30-10-1980 was itself without the authority of law and any objection raised by the accountant general of kanataka on the basis of that notification or any other notification was clearly without understanding the implication of subsection (3) of Section 16 of the taxation act. To put it in another way, the executive power to issue notification conferred by sub-section (1) was denied by the legislature in regard to the vehicles covered by sub-section (3 ). Therefore there was total want of competence to issue a notification or a direction in regard to collection of motor vehicles tax on vehicles which had been exempted by the legislature itself. ( 7 ) THEREFORE for the relevant period with which the demands of proceedings for initiating recovery of motor vehicles tax there was no authority in the concerned tax officials under the taxation act to recover tax on vehicles which had stood exempted from payment of tax. Therefore we have no hesitation to uphold the contentions of the petitioners and quash the proceedings initiated to bring to lax the vehicles which had been used exclusively for agricultural operations including the tractors as long as there was no evidence of such vehicles having contravened the parameters prescribed under Rule 36 as it then existed under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Subject to above observation writ petitions stand allowed and the Rule issued made absolute in terms above. Demands impugned in these petitions are quashed. There will be no orders as to costs. Writ petitions allowed. --- *** --- .