JUDGMENT : M.C. Agarwal, J. The Petitioner M/s Continental Construction Limited has filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer levying goods tax on the motor vehicles owned by the Petitioner. 2. Writ No. 1058 of 1993 relates to the levy of a sum of Rs.1,69,600 levied as tax treating the vehicles as private goods vehicles. Subsequently, the Assistant Regional Transport Officer levied an additional sum of Rs. 51,331.50 p. treating the vehicles as public goods vehicles. The subsequent order is the subject-matter of writ No. 975 of 1994. 3. In writ No. 1058 of 1993, counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the Respondents in the other writ petition inspite of grant of several opportunities. 4. I have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Sri R.D. Gupta, learned standing counsel for the Respondents. 5. The Petitioner is a construction company and had taken a contract from the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh for the construction of barrage, dam, tunnel and other ancillary works relating to the Maneri Bhali Dam Project at Joshiyara in the district of Uttar Kashi. For executing its works, It brought to the site of the project 14 motor vehicles, known as tippers. There was yet another vehicle, which was a water tanker. The registration numbers of all the 15 vehicles are stated in para 4 of writ petition No.1058 of 1993 which have not been denied or disputed. 6. The Petitioner's case is that Respondent No. 2; sought to assess the vehicles for goods tax. The Petitioner disputed the proposed levy contending that it was not using the vehicles on any public road and they were used within the project area. According to it, the vehicles were not being used for carrying goods to and from outside the project area. The Petitioner further contended that Its vehicles were neither public goods vehicles nor private goods vehicles, as defined in the Motor Gadi (Mal-Kar) Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') and, therefore, no tax can be levied in respect thereof. It also contended that the goods carried by the vehicles within the project area belonged to and were the property of the State Government and, consequently, were not goods, as defined in the Adhiniyam. 7. It also contended that the goods carried by the vehicles within the project area belonged to and were the property of the State Government and, consequently, were not goods, as defined in the Adhiniyam. 7. In spite of the Petitioner's objections, the Respondent No. 2 made an assessment dated 22nd September, 1988, levying a sum of Rs. 1,76,593.50 p. A copy of the assessment order has been annexed to the wilt petition as Annexure 3' which shows that in respect of all the vehicles, a sum of Rs. 1,950 has been levied u/s 10 and a sum of Rs. 9,822.90 p. has been levied u/s 12(2) of the Adhiniyam. A total sum of Rs. 11,772.90 p. has thus been levied as goods tax in respect of each of the 15 vehicles for the period 1.1.1987 to 9.8.1988. 8. The assessing officer has mentioned in the assessment order that the area of the dam project cannot be said to be a private area and since the project area belongs to the State Government, therefore, it is to be treated as property of the public and that since the company (the Petitioner) is constructing certain portions of the dam and the vehicles are being used for profit, they are liable to be assessed. This assessment was made treating the vehicles as private goods vehicles. The reasons stated in the assessment order for levying the tax have been repeated as pleas in the counter-affidavit. 9. Subsequently, the assessing officer, namely, the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, passed another order dated 29th January, 1991, a copy of which is Annexure 5' to the Writ Petition No. 975 of 1994. The order purports to have been passed in exercise of powers u/s 13 of the Adhiniyam, It is stated that the vehicles in question were public goods vehicles and, therefore, the tax levied earlier was less. The Respondent No. 2, therefore, levied an additional amount of Rs. 51,331.50 p. The Petitioner's appeals to the Deputy Transport Commissioner against both the orders failed and the Petitioner filed the present writ petitions. 10. Two facts that are important have not been disputed by the Respondents. The Respondent No. 2, therefore, levied an additional amount of Rs. 51,331.50 p. The Petitioner's appeals to the Deputy Transport Commissioner against both the orders failed and the Petitioner filed the present writ petitions. 10. Two facts that are important have not been disputed by the Respondents. Firstly, the vehicles in question were used for carrying various types of building materials used for execution of the works connected with the Maneri Bhali Dam Project and this transport of goods by the Petitioner was restricted to the project area, which, as admitted in the assessment order as well as in the counter-affidavit, was the property of the State of Uttar Pradesh The other fact is that the goods that were carried were the properties of the State Government. 11. Sections 3 and 4 of the Adhiniyam are the charging sections. Section 3 relates to public goods vehicles while Section 4 relates to private goods vehicles. Section 3 levies a tax on all goods carried by road in a public goods vehicle. The rate of tax is 5% of the freight payable for such carriage of goods in the State. Explanation I to Section 3 prescribes how the freight payable will be calculated. Explanation II provides how the freight payable will be calculated in cases where no freight is payable or if the freight payable is less than the amount calculated at such rates as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time. 12. Section 4 provides for levy of the goods tax on all goods carried by road in a private goods vehicles in the State at a rate equivalent to 5% of the amount of freight calculated at such rate as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time. Section 2(b) defines 'goods' and Sub-clause (xii) thereof excludes from the definition of "goods' articles which are the property of the Central Government or the State Government, meaning thereby that no tax under the Adhiniyam can be levied in respect of the goods which are the properties of the Central Government or the State Government. Section 2(b) defines 'goods' and Sub-clause (xii) thereof excludes from the definition of "goods' articles which are the property of the Central Government or the State Government, meaning thereby that no tax under the Adhiniyam can be levied in respect of the goods which are the properties of the Central Government or the State Government. Section 2(f) of the Adhiniyam defines 'private goods vehicle' to mean any motor vehicle...when used for the carriage of goods, solely, or in addition to passengers such goods being the property of the owner or operator of such vehicle and the carriage of which is necessary for the purpose of the business, not being the business of providing transport. Section 2(g) defines 'public goods vehicle' to mean any motor vehicle...used for the carriage of goods, solely or in addition to passengers, for hire or reward and includes a trailer.... 13. The aforesaid definitions of the public and private goods vehicles would show that whether a vehicle is a private goods vehicle or a public goods vehicle for the purposes of this Adhiniyam does not depend on whether under the Motor Vehicles Act, the said vehicle is registered as a public or a private goods carrier. To determine whether the vehicle is a private goods vehicle or a public goods vehicle for the purposes of the present Adhiniyam, what is relevant is its use on a particular occasion. The same vehicle may, at one time, be operated as a public goods vehicle and at another, as a private goods vehicle. 14. As stated above, articles which are the property of the State Government or the Central Government are excluded from the definition of 'goods' under the Adhiniyam. Therefore, the carriage of such goods whether in a private goods vehicle or a public goods vehicle cannot be subjected to tax under the Adhiniyam. 15. It may be mentioned that the Respondents have not denied that what was carried in the vehicles belonging to the Petitioner were goods belonging to the State Government that were to be used as materials in connection with the project work. Therefore, those materials were not goods within the scope of the Adhiniyam and their transport by the Petitioner could not attract the goods tax. Therefore, those materials were not goods within the scope of the Adhiniyam and their transport by the Petitioner could not attract the goods tax. Further, the vehicles used by the Petitioner for the transport of goods from one place to another within the project area did not amount either to private goods vehicles or public goods vehicles. For being a private goods vehicle, the goods to be carried have to be the property of the owner or the operator of such vehicle. It has never been the case of the Respondents that the goods carried in the vehicles of the Petitioner were the property of the Petitioner and, therefore, the vehicles could not be treated as private goods vehicles for the purposes of the Adhiniyam. 16. Similarly, for being treated as public goods vehicles, the goods have to be carried for hire or reward. It is not the case of the Respondents that the State Government was paying to the Petitioner any hire or reward for the transport of the building materials, etc. The vehicles, therefore, could also not be treated as public goods vehicles. 17. The above discussion would show that neither the articles transported were goods within the meaning of the Adhiniyam nor the vehicles were private or public goods vehicles covered by the said Adhiniyam and, therefore, no goods tax under the Adhiniyam could be levied in respect thereof. 18. Sections 3 and 4 show that the tax can be levied only in respect of the goods carried by road. 'Road' has not been defined under the Adhiniyam. Looking to the purpose of the Adhiniyam, it is clear that the road would mean a public road, i.e., a road on which the general public has an unrestricted right of passage. The Petitioner had been stating that it was not using its vehicles for the transport of goods on any such road. Neither in the Impugned orders nor in the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the Petitioner has used the vehicles on any public road. What is stated is that the project area being the property of the State Government has to be treated as a public place. Simply because a property belongs to the State Government, it is neither public property nor a public place, as understood by the authorities below. What is stated is that the project area being the property of the State Government has to be treated as a public place. Simply because a property belongs to the State Government, it is neither public property nor a public place, as understood by the authorities below. The State is a legal person and, therefore, can own private property as well as public properties. The Raj Bhawan, the official residence of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, or the Chief Minister's residence cannot be equated with a public park or a bus stand owned by the Government. It is not the case of the Respondents that there was any public road within the project area through which the goods were carried. Therefore, it is clear that the vehicles in question were not used for the transport of any goods by road, as required by Sections 3 and 4 of the Adhiniyam. 19. Lastly, Sections 3 and 4 prescribe the manner in which the goods tax has to be calculated. The actual freight or the assumed freight is the basis of the determination of the goods tax which has to be 5% of such freight. in the impugned orders, the Respondent No. 2 has not given any basis whatsoever for arriving at the amounts levied. In the impugned order dated 22nd September. 1988, a sum of Rs. 1,950 purports to have been levied u/s 10 of the Adhiniyam. Section 10 obliges the operator to submit to the Tax Officer a return in such form and manner and at such Intervals, as may be prescribed. Failure of an operator to submit a return renders an operator liable to penalty in a sum not exceeding Rs. 10 in respect of each vehicle for every day of default. The assessing officer has not specifically mentioned that he is levying any penalty and has not given any calculation for arriving at a sum of Rs. 1,950. 20. Section 12 (2) of the Adhiniyam permits a best judgment assessment when no return has been submitted or the return submitted by the operator is not accepted. The assessing officer has levied a sum of Rs.9,822,90 p. per vehicle without giving any basis. 1,950. 20. Section 12 (2) of the Adhiniyam permits a best judgment assessment when no return has been submitted or the return submitted by the operator is not accepted. The assessing officer has levied a sum of Rs.9,822,90 p. per vehicle without giving any basis. Therefore, the determination of the tax payable is also not shown to be in accordance with the provisions of law and since no basis of calculation has been given either in the assessment orders or in the counter-affidavit, the levy can be described as arbitrary. Similar is the situation with regard to the subsequent order by which an additional sum of Rs. 51,331 was levied. 21. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the assessment orders dated 22nd September, 1988, and 29th January, 1991, represent a negligent exercise of power without looking to the provisions of the Adhiniyam and without giving due consideration to the submissions made by the Petitioner who was seriously denying its liability to be assessed under the Adhiniyam. These writ petitions, therefore, deserve to be allowed and in the circumstances of the case, the Petitioner deserves to be compensated by award of interest at the rate of 18% from the date of payment of the tax to the date of actual refund. 22. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned assessment orders dated 22nd September, 1988, and 21st September, 1991, and the appellate orders dated 30th June, 1993, and 30th April, 1994, are hereby quashed. The Respondents are directed to refund the amounts paid by the Petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid orders to the Petitioner forthwith along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the deposit of the amounts to the date of the actual refund. The Petitioner will also get its costs of these writ petitions which I assess at Rs. 2,500 in writ No. 1058 of 1993 and Rs. 1.500 in writ No. 975 of 1994.