ORDER P.P. Naolekar, J. -- 1. This order shall also govern'\he disposal of M.P. No. 3155/91*. 2. By these petitions, the petitioners arc assailing the validity of the notification issued on 7.6.1991 increasing the rate of tax by the State Government by amending the Schedule under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947. Section 3A of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act provides for levy of additional tax on public Service vehicles, in addition to the tax levied under section 3. Section 3A was inserted in M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 by Act No. 13/78. Tax under the section was leviable on all public service vehicles having seating capacity exceeding six passengers, excluding the driver and conductor, at the rate specified in the Third Schedule. The M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 was further amended by Act No. 6/X9. This Act receive4 assent of the Governor on 13.4.1989 and was published in the M.P. Gazelle (Extraordinary) dated 17.4.1989. Amongst other sections of the Act of 1947, section 3A was also amended. After amendment of section 3A by Act No. 6/X9, section 3A read as under: 3-A. Levy of additional tax Oil public service vehicles -- (1) In addition to the tax levied under section 3, but subject rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf, there shall be levied and paid to the State Government an additional tax on all public service' vehicles at the rate specified in the Third Schedule: Provided that no additional tax shall be levied on public service vehicles (i) having seating capacity not exceeding six passengers excluding the driver and plying with valid permit; or . (ii) plying exclusively within the areas of Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees, C1ntonment Boards, Notified Area Committees, Special Area Development Authorities and on such routes serving adjacent areas as may be approved and notified by the State Government. (2) The tax leviable under sub-section (1) shall be paid by the owner of the public service vehicle for each month at the rate specified in the Third Schedule. (3) The State Government may, by notification, amend the rate of tax specified in the Third Schedule, and thereupon Third Schedule shall stand amended accordingly. (2) The tax leviable under sub-section (1) shall be paid by the owner of the public service vehicle for each month at the rate specified in the Third Schedule. (3) The State Government may, by notification, amend the rate of tax specified in the Third Schedule, and thereupon Third Schedule shall stand amended accordingly. Every notification issued under this sub-section shall be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly and the provisions of section 24-A of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1957 (No.3 of 1985) shall apply thereto as they apply to a rule: Provided that the rate of tax shall not be increased by more than fifty per cent of the rate specified in the said Schedule: Provided further that no notification shall be issued under this sub-section without giving in the Gazelle such previous notice as the State Government may consider reasonable of its intention to issue such notification. Under the Act No. 6/89, the Third Schedule was amended and the rate of tax for stage carriage was specified in column 2 as 16 paise per scat per 10 kilometers for entire distance covered during the month in accordance with the conditions attached to the permit. By notification published in the Gazelle dated 29.6.1989, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 3A of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947, the State Government made amendment in the Third Schedule whereunder entries in column 2 against Item No.1 'stage carriage', amendment was substituted prescribing rate of tax as 14 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the entire distance covered during the month in accordance with the conditions attached to the permit: provided that for the period between 16th June and 15th October, both inclusive, this rate shall be 12 paise per seat per 10 kilometers. By amendment of the Third Schedule introduced by notification dated 29.8.1989, tax was made leviable at 14 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the period 16th October to 15th June and 12 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the period 16th June to 15th October. On 7.2.1991, Amendment to Third Schedule to the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 was published. On 7.2.1991, Amendment to Third Schedule to the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 was published. The draft amendment proposed enhancement of 2 paise per scat per 10 kilometers for the entire distance to be covered during the month in accordance with the conditions attached to the permit under the Third Schedule. However, this amendment was not adopted by the State Government and on 7.3.1991 a draft proposal making amendment to the Third Schedule of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 Was published, required by sub-section(3) of section 3A for information of all persons likely to be affected thereby and notice was given that the said draft will be taken into consideration on the expiry of 10 days from the date of publication of the notice in the M.P. Gazelle. This draft amendment of Schedule III was finally adopted by final publication on 7.6.1991 whereunder the Third Schedule in respect of stage carriages was amended as under : (a) 20 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the entire distance to be covered during the month in accordance with the conditions attached to the permit. (b) 20 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the entire distance to be covered in accordance with the conditions attached to the permit during the period of which the permit is granted. The direct result of this amendment was that the tax was increased from 14 paise per seat for the period 16th October to 15th June to 20 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the entire distance to be covered and from 12 paise for the period 16th June to 15th October per seal per to kilometers to 20 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the entire distance to be covered. 3. Section 3A, as amendment by Act No. 6/89 permits the State Government to levy a tax in addition to the tax levied under sub-section (3) on public service vehicles at the rates specified in the Third Schedule. Sub-section (3) of section 3A gives authority to the State Government to issue notification for amending the rate of tax specified in Third Schedule. Sub-section (3) of section 3A gives authority to the State Government to issue notification for amending the rate of tax specified in Third Schedule. However, issuance of notification amending the rate of lax is subjected conditions specified under sub-section (3) read with the proviso, i.e., -- (i) Every notification issued under this sub-section is required to be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly and the provisions of section 24-A of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 (No.3 of 1958) shall apply. (ii) No notification shall be issued amending the rate of tax specified in the Third Schedule, unless it is published in the Gazette in the form of a previous notice giving intention of making amel1llment in the Third Schedule. (iii) The rate of tax shall not be increased by more than fifty per cent of the rate specified in the Third Schedule. The effect of amendment of section 3A is that the delegation of powers given to the State to amend the Third Schedule by notification is restricted to a maximum increase by fifty per cent of the previous rates specified in the Third Schedule and that such amendment shall be made only after giving due notice to the parties likely to be affected by the intended amendment to the Third Schedule by publication in the Gazette. . 4. The counsel appearing for the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 7th June 1991 on the ground that they were not heard prior to the publication of the notification on 7.3.1991 and the tax increased is excessive and will result in closure of their business. It was also submitted that although the intended notice was published in the Gazette on 7.3.1991, the Gazette was not circulated within 10 days from the date of publication of notice and thereby the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right of raising objections to the intended increase and also placing their cases before the final publication was made. It is also submitted that the increase of tax by notification dated 7.6.1991 is not in accordance with the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3A and the increase in fact results an increase of more than fifty per cent of the rates specified in the Third Schedule by notification of 29.8.1989. 5. It is also submitted that the increase of tax by notification dated 7.6.1991 is not in accordance with the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3A and the increase in fact results an increase of more than fifty per cent of the rates specified in the Third Schedule by notification of 29.8.1989. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the principles of natural justice haw no application while exercising the legislative powers, except as provided under the statute itself and the principles of natural justice so far as provided in the second proviso, i.e. publication of notice in the Gazette of intended increase in the tax, has been complied with; the tax increase is not more than fifty per cent of the tax specified in the Third Schedule. In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 223 , the Supreme Court has held in para 37 as under: "If a particular function is termed legislative rather than judicial practical results may follow as far as the parties are concerned. When the function is treated as legislative, a party affected by the order has no right to notice and hearing, unless, of course, the statute requires. It being of general application engulfing a wide sweep of powers applicable to all persons and situations of a broadly identifiable class, the legislative order may not be vulnerable to challenge merely by reason of its omission to take into account individual peculiarities and differences amongst those falling within the class. 6. Sub-section (3) of section 3A gives authority to the State Government to amend the rate of tax prescribed in the Third Schedule, of course, subject to certain restrictions. Fixation of rate of lax by notification by the State Government is in the nature of legislative action and the principles or natural justice so far as provided in the second proviso shall apply and non--compliance of that principles of natural justice will certainly invalidate the notification dated 7.6.1991. But the provision does nut require giving of notice to individual operators or persons paying tax on stage carriage. The requirement is only of publication of the notice in the Gazelle showing intention to increase the rate of tax. But the provision does nut require giving of notice to individual operators or persons paying tax on stage carriage. The requirement is only of publication of the notice in the Gazelle showing intention to increase the rate of tax. Every individual is neither required to be noticed individually nor is required to be heard personally, unless objection is being raised against the increase of tax by that individual. The principles of natural Justice so far as it is provided under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3A shall apply to the Legislative function of the State in so far as it relates to the amendment of the Third Schedule and nothing more than that. The notification increasing the tax to 20 paise per seat per 10 kilometers was published on 7.3.1991. The notification shows that it is published as required by the second proviso to the said sub-section for information of those persons who arc likely to be affected thereby and the draft amendment shall be taken into consideration on the expiry of 10 days from the date of publication. This notification issued on 7.3.1991 complies with the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3A, which embodies the principle of natural justice in it. 7. So far as the factual aspect, the notification dated 7.3.1991 intending to increase the tax by amending the Third Schedule was not circulated within time so as to give opportunity to the persons affected by the increase to raise objection has been specifically denied by the respondent/State in its return. In paragraph 4 of the return it is stated that the first notification was issued on 7.2.1991 and published on the same day giving 10 days' time for making objections and as this notification covers only stage carriages, omitting contract carriages, in order to correct the error, another notification dated 7.3.1991 was published in the Gazette inviting objections within 10 days. The respondents have also filed an affidavit of Shri A.K. Khanduriya, Assistant Controller, Government Press, Bhopal, in-charge of Printing, Publishing and Despatch as Annexure-R/VI, wherein it is stated that the transport department or the M.P. Government Notification No. 8-3-87-VIII, dated 7th March 1991, was published in the Extraordinary Gazelle vide Sc. No. 195 dated 7th March 1991; it was despatched to the subscribers through R.M.S., Bhopal on 8.3.1991 and a receipt or the postal department dated 8.3.1991 was obtained. No. 195 dated 7th March 1991; it was despatched to the subscribers through R.M.S., Bhopal on 8.3.1991 and a receipt or the postal department dated 8.3.1991 was obtained. This affidavit of a high official of the Central Press, Bhopal clearly indicates that the notification was published on 7th March 1991 and that it was despatched on 8.3.1991. It is further established by the documents filed by the respondents that as many as 20 objections were heard and decided on 4.6.1991 and thereafter the notification was published on 7.6.1991. The facts, as emerged, clearly indicate that the respondent-State had made full compliance with the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3A of the Act and the principles of natural justice as embodied in this section have been complied with. 8. While considering the legislative competence of the State Legislature to impose tax (in this case section 3A read with Schedule III of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947), one has to take into consideration that it has two distinct clement'" : (i) the subject of tax, and (ii) the measure or tax. The subject or tax is person, thing or activity on which tax is imposed and the measure of tax is the standard by which tax is measured. The competence of the legislature to enact a law under a particular head of the legislative list has to be examined in the context of the subject of the tax. If the subject of the tax falls within the ambit of the legislative powers conferred by legislative head, it will be within the powers of the legislature to impose tax. In the present case, tax has been levied on the motor vehicle on the basis of its sitting capacity and the legislature is competent to enact such a law under entry 57, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The objection of the petitioners that they shall not he able to pay the increased tax as the same affects their business is not an argument which can be taken into consideration while considering the validity of the tax levied, unless it can be demonstrated that the lax increased is so exorbitant that it transgressed the limits embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Spences Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 1991 2 SCC 154 , that ability to pay lax is no consideration while adjudicating the constitutional validity of tax legislation. It has also been held in Sri Krishna Das v. Town Area Committee, Chirgaon, AIR 1991 SC 2096 : "It. is for the legislature or the taxing authority lo determine the question of need, the policy and to select the goods or services for taxation. The Courts cannot review these decisions, Courts cannot review the wisdom or advisability or expediency of a tax as the Court has no concern with the policy of legislation, so long they arc not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. It is only where there is abuse of its powers and transgression of the legislative function in levying a tax, it may be corrected by the judiciary and not otherwise. Taxes may be and often arc oppressive, unjust and even unnecessary but this Can constitute no reason for judicial interference." Here tax increase is made on the motor vehicles carrying more than six passengers. Thus, the motor vehicle is the subject of tax and the tax provided in the Third Schedule is uniformly levied on all motor vehicles and there is no clement of discrimination. 9. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the increase of tax is more than fifty per cent, which is in contravention of the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3A wherein there is a prohibition that the rate of tax shall not he increased by more than any percent of the rates specified in the said' Schedule. By notification dated 29.8.1989 rates have been prescribed as 14 paise per seat per 10 kilometers for the period 16th October to 15th June and 12 paise per seat per 10 kilometers from 16th June to 15th October, which has been increased by the impugned notification dated 7.6.1991 to 20 paise per seat per 10 kilometers. Increase from 12 paise to 20 paise for the period 16th June to 15th October will be more than 50 percent, as the rate of tax prescribed can he to the extent of (12 + 16) = 18 paise only. Increase from 12 paise to 20 paise for the period 16th June to 15th October will be more than 50 percent, as the rate of tax prescribed can he to the extent of (12 + 16) = 18 paise only. So far as the increase to 20 paise from 14 paise, it will be within the limits prescribed by the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3A, as it could he extended upto (14 + 7) = 21 paise. It. was contended by the learned counsel further respondents that if average of 12 paise and 14 paise is taken, the increase is within the limit of 50% of the of prescribed under the notification dated 29.8.1989. The counsel has given the calculation as under: 14 P x 8 months = 112 p. 12 p x 4 months = 48 p. --------------- Total addl. tax per passenger during a year 160 p. Addl. tax per passenger per month 160/12 = 13.33 ------------ Average rate of tax = 13.33 p. 50% of this = 6.67 p. _______ 20.00 p. (Increase is 50%) We arc afraid, we cannot accept this contention of the counsel for the respondents firstly because under sub-section (3) of section 3A powers arc given to the State Government to amend the rate of tax which is specified in the Third Schedule and not the Schedule itself. If the contention of the counsel is accepted, it will result in amending the Schedule itself because the rate of tax provided for different periods shall be required to be: taken to be one period only for the whole year. Secondly, the calculation as is being done is for the entire year, i.e. 12 months, whereas under sub-section (2) of section 3A, the tax is payable every month. Therefore, calculation for the whole year, i.e. 12 months, for payment of tax is not permissible and as such increase in the tax as claimed by method adopted, is not in conformity with law. 10. It is well settled that if there there can be severance of the notification issued and one part of the notification can be saved without affecting the other part of the notification, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the valid part of the notification as in conformity with law and invalid portion of the notification can be struck down. 10. It is well settled that if there there can be severance of the notification issued and one part of the notification can be saved without affecting the other part of the notification, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the valid part of the notification as in conformity with law and invalid portion of the notification can be struck down. In the present case, under the impugned notification, tax increase of 20 paise from 14 paise is within the permissible limit as prescribed under the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3A, where as increase to 20 paise from 12 paise is he yond the limit prescribed by that proviso and the State is not competent to make the increase to 20 paise from 12 paise and, therefore, the notification prescribing that rate, i.e. increase from 12 paise to 20 paise for the period 16th June to 15th October is invalid and beyond the competence of the State and as such is struck down. The rest of the notification, i.e. raising the tax to 20 paise from 14 paise is within the permissible limit and is therefore upheld. 11. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. The parties shall hear their own costs. The Security amount be refunded to the petitioner.