JUDGMENT D.P. Wadhwa, CJ & S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners, numbering three, seek a declaration that Section 28(1) of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') is ultra vires the powers of the legislature and also on account of double jeopardy and containing unreasonable restriction on the right of the citizens to carry on free trade and business and a declaration also sought that section 28(1) is in contravention of Section 29 of the Act and further that provisions of Section 28(1) cannot be invoked after operation of Section 29 of the Act. 2. The first petitioner is stated to be a registered institution working for the welfare of Transport Operators within the State of Bihar. The second petitioner is also stated to be an Association working for the same purpose for bus owners in Bhojpur district and is affiliated with the first petitioner. The third petitioner is the registered owner of a bus bearing no. BR-3-8511. 3. To know as to how the petitioners are challenging the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Act it may be appropriate to refer the facts concerning the third petitioner. As noted above he is the registered owner of a bus. He had to pay advance tax for his vehicle under the Act for the period from 1.8.95 to 31.10.95. He had paid the tax uptill 31.7.95 of his vehicle. For further period the third petitioner did not pay the tax within the period prescribed. On 8.10.95 the Enforcement Officer under the Act seized the vehicle of the third petitioner as it was found plying without payment of tax. Nonpayment of tax is an offence under section 28 of the Act and also if the tax is not paid during the prescribed period a person is also liable to pay penalty. Section 29 of the Act provides for compounding of the offence. The third petitioner says that on 9.10.95 he paid the tax and so also the penalty when according to him the offence, if any under section 28 of the Act stood compounded by virtue of Section 29. His complaint is that the respondents are demanding penalty of Rs.48,000/- under Section 28(1) of the Act which is illegal and in contravention of Section 29 of the Act. His complaint is that the respondents are demanding penalty of Rs.48,000/- under Section 28(1) of the Act which is illegal and in contravention of Section 29 of the Act. That is how the petitioners have challenged the validity of Section 28(1) of the Act. 4. Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1994 (in short 'the Rules') had been framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it under section 31 of the Act. During the course of the argument reference was made to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act as well and Rules 4 and 17 of the Rules. It was also submitted before us during the course of argument that on payment of Rs. 24,000/- as fine or penalty by the third petitioner his vehicle has since been released. 5. To understand the rival contentions we may set out the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Under Section 22 of the Act any Taxing Officer, or any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Inspector of Motor Vehicle or any other officer specially authorised by the State Transport Commissioner in this behalf may effect seizure of the vehicles if the tax or penalty or both tax and penalty has not been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Taxing Officer is appointed under Section 3 of the Act. Under Section 23 if tax payable in respect of a vehicle has not been paid during prescribed period, the person liable to pay such tax shall pay, together with the arrears of tax, a penalty at the rates prescribed by the State Government. As to what would be amount of penalty, it is prescribed under rule 4 which lays down due date of payment and penalty for non-payment of taxes in time. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 and Section 29 of the Act are as under : 28. Penalties - (1)(a) Whoever uses a motor vehicle or keeps a motor vehicle for use without having paid tax or additional tax or differential tax in respect of such vehicle shall be punished with fine, not exceeding in the case of the first offence twice and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence three times the amount of annual tax payable for the motor vehicle in respect of which offence is committed. (b) Whoever intentionally delivers in respect of a motor vehicle any declaration or undertaking wherein the particulars required by or under this ordinance, is falsely given or incorrectly stated, shall, on conviction be punished with fine not exceeding for the first offence, twice and for every subsequent offence three times the amount of annual tax payable for the vehicle in respect of which the offence is committed. (2) ............. 29. Compounding of offence. Where any person is accused of an offence under section 28 except of an offence under sub-section (5) of Section 28, it shall be lawful for him to pay to the prescribed officer by way of compounding for such offence, a sum of money as may be prescribed together with the amount of tax and penalty, if any, which may be due from him and such compounding shall have the effect of an acquittal and no further proceedings shall be taken against such person in respect of such offence. We may as well quote Rule 17 as under : 17. Authority for compounding and the amount. - (1) All officers enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 22 shall be competent to compound the offence under the ordinance and the Rules. (2) The amount payable for compounding of offence shall be fifty percent of the maximum amount of fine, prescribed for such offence under Section 28. 6. If we read aforesaid provisions we are unable to understand the arguments advanced by the petitioners as to how sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act is in any way ultra vires of any provisions of law or inconsistent with or in contravention of Section 29 of the Act. Section 23 read with Rule 4 provides for payment of penalty for non-payment of tax within time. Section 28 makes non-payment of tax an offence and prescribes the punishment. This offence can be compounded under Section 29 of the Act if the person accused of the offence pays (1) the amount of tax; (2) penalty, if any, and (3) a sum of money as may be prescribed (which we may call the compounding fee). As to who will prescribe/fix the compounding fee and as to what amount it would be fixed, Rule 17 gives the answer. As to who will prescribe/fix the compounding fee and as to what amount it would be fixed, Rule 17 gives the answer. We have not been shown any order made under Rule 17 prescribing the amount of compounding fee which the third petitioner could be said to have deposited though his case is that he has since deposited the tax and penalty. He has wrongly described the penalty as fine. In the absence of compounding fee as may be ordered under Section 29 of the Act and Rule 17 it cannot be said that the offence of the person, who may be accused stand compounded and he is acquitted. The petitioners, it would appear, are confusing between the penalty and the fine. The third petitioner has not been prosecuted so far under Section 28(1) of the Act nor threatened of any such prosecution and we fail to understand how he is advancing the plea of the offence having been compounded. He is also not being doubly punished for the same offence and his plea of double jeopardy is meaningless. Non-payment of tax within time is a separate and distinct offence than the liability to pay penalty for non-payment or late payment of the tax under the Act. Section 28(1) of the Act is a valid piece of legislation. 7. We find no merit in this application. It is dismissed in limine.