JUDGMENT M.H.S. ANSARI, J. 1. The petitioner is the registered owner of a motor vehicle registered as Auto-Rickshaw bearing registration no. WB-57/2093. A copy of the registration certificate is annexure 'A' to the writ petition. In annexure 'A' the vehicle has been described as Vikram Auto-Rickshaw and in the column relating to seating capacity it is specified as 8 (7+1) including driver. 2. The petitioner has questioned the levy of additional tax demanded by the respondent authorities under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Additional Tax and One Time Tax of Motor Vehicles Act 1989, hereinafter referred to as the Additional Tax Act, 1989. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has paid and is liable for payment only of the tax as leviable under section 3 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 which is at the rate of Rs. 1100/- annually or Rs. 275/- quarterly. The petitioner contends that he is not liable to pay under the Additional Tax Act, 1989 on the ground that Auto-Rickshaws fall under exempted category public service vehicles and are therefore not liable for payment of the additional tax. The levy and demand of the respondent authorities for additional tax is therefore said to be without authority of law. 3. The contention of N.I. Khan, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Tax Authority, however, is that the Vikram Diesel 3-Wheeler vehicle having seating capacity of more than 6 persons excluding driver falls within the definition of maxi cab and is not entitled for exemption provided for Auto-Rickshaw under the Additional Tax Act, 1989. The petitioner, it is contended by the respondent tax authorities is liable to pay additional tax. 4. To appreciate the contentions advanced before Court by the learned Counsel for either parties, it may be necessary to refer to certain relevant statutory provisions. The petitioner, it is contended by the respondent tax authorities is liable to pay additional tax. 4. To appreciate the contentions advanced before Court by the learned Counsel for either parties, it may be necessary to refer to certain relevant statutory provisions. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a law enacted by Parliament, section 2(28) defines Motor Vehicle as under:- "Motor vehicle or vehicle means 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 a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding (twenty-five cubic centimetres)." In section 2(22) maxi cab is defined as under:- "Maxi cab means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward." What is significant, however, to note is that the Auto-Rickshaw has not been defined either in the Motor Vehicles Act or the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 or the Additional Tax Act, 1989. 5. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the registration authority having registered the vehicle in question as an Auto-Rickshaw in the registration book and allowed the petitioner to ply the vehicle on permit issued by the competent authority as Auto-Rickshaw, the vehicle in question has to be treated as Auto-Rickshaw and entitled to the exemption prescribed under Additional Tax Act, 1989. 6. Under section 3(1) of the Additional Tax Act, 1989 every owner of a registered motor vehicle who owns or possesses any motor vehicle as described in Schedule I shall pay the additional tax at the rate specified therein against such vehicle. Schedule I prescribes the description of the motor vehicle and additional tax payable thereon. 6. Under section 3(1) of the Additional Tax Act, 1989 every owner of a registered motor vehicle who owns or possesses any motor vehicle as described in Schedule I shall pay the additional tax at the rate specified therein against such vehicle. Schedule I prescribes the description of the motor vehicle and additional tax payable thereon. In so far as motor vehicles carrying passengers plying for hire are concerned in part B motor vehicles of various description are specified clause (f) in part B is relevant for the purposes of the present enquiry and is extracted herein-below:- "Public service vehicle including contract carriage but excluding stage carriage- (i) Motor cab or luxury taxi upto seating capacity of 6 including driver, Rs. 2000 (payable with effect from the 25th day of November, 1991) (ii) Seating capacity above 6 including driver Rs. 6000 Provided that the additional tax shall not be imposed on the following categories of public service vehicles:- (i) Auto-rickshaws (ii) Metered taxis (iii) Mini buses holding contract carriage permits and plying as ordinary minibuses as Stage Carriages but not plying as express buses or deluxe buses and also registered in West Bengal." The petitioner relies upon the proviso which exempts the vehicles specified thereunder from the impost of additional tax. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, brought to the notice of this Court certain facts relating to the registration of Vikram Diesel 3-Wheeler as Auto-Rickshaws and referred to the circular of the State of West Bengal being no. 9215-WT/3M-75/93 dated 21st October, 1993. By this circular the 3-Wheeler vehicle having seating capacity of 8 (eight) including driver and manufactured by Scooter India Ltd. was allowed to be registered as public service vehicles as well as goods carriages as Auto-Rickshaws. By a Central notification no. SO 436(E) dated 12.6.1989 Auto-Rickshaw was defined to mean a motor vehicle having 3-wheels and used to carry not more than 3 passengers excluding driver for hire. Consequent to this Central notification, the State of West Bengal issued another circular no. 2738-WT/4M-34/94 dated 29th March, 1995 whereby it was directed that the present Vikram 3-Wheeler having carrying capacity of eight passengers including driver shall not be treated as Auto-Rickshaw and it was further directed that the term 'Rickshaw' should be deleted from registration certificate. Consequent to this Central notification, the State of West Bengal issued another circular no. 2738-WT/4M-34/94 dated 29th March, 1995 whereby it was directed that the present Vikram 3-Wheeler having carrying capacity of eight passengers including driver shall not be treated as Auto-Rickshaw and it was further directed that the term 'Rickshaw' should be deleted from registration certificate. It was also indicated in the said circular that this vehicle shall be brought under the ambit of Additional Tax Act, 1989. 8. In the light of the above factual matrix the only point for consideration is whether the vehicle in question i.e. Vikram 3-Wheeler having seating capacity of more than 6 excluding driver comes within the definition of maxi cab or Auto-Rickshaw. If it be held that the vehicle in question is an Auto-Rickshaw then the contention of the petitioner as to exemption under Additional Tax Act, 1989 would prevail. However, if it is found that the vehicle in question is a maxicab there can be no dispute that the same is liable for payment of additional tax under the Additional Tax Act, 1989. 9. Already noticed the vehicle in .question is registered as Auto-Rickshaw in the registration book by the Motor Vehicles Authorities and permits have also been issued describing the same as Auto-Rickshaw. It is based upon these factors that the petitioner claims exemption in respect of Auto-Rickshaw under Additional Tax Act, 1989 by virtue of the proviso extracted supra is applicable to the vehicle in question. 10. We have already noticed how the Vikram 3-Wheeler came to be registered as Auto-Rickshaw pursuant to the State notification no. 9215-WT. That notification has been superseded by the subsequent notification no. 2738-WT. But for the State notification no 9215-WT the vehicle in question could not have been registered as an Auto-Rickshaw. The reason for the same being that it would fall within the definition of maxi cab under section 2(22) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. Under the definition section 2(22) maxi cab has been defined as any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than 6 passengers but not more than 12 passengers excluding driver for hire. There is no specification in the said definition as to the number of wheels the vehicle in question shall contain. 11. Under the definition section 2(22) maxi cab has been defined as any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than 6 passengers but not more than 12 passengers excluding driver for hire. There is no specification in the said definition as to the number of wheels the vehicle in question shall contain. Auto-Rickshaw is not defined in the Act or the rules and for the said reason it would be regarded as a vehicle/motor vehicle based upon the definition within which it would fall from amongst the definitions of various vehicles as defined under the MV Act, 1988. The definition of maxi cab would over Auto-Rickshaws as well inasmuch as it is motor vehicle and is used to carry passengers more than 6 and less than 12 for hire or reward. What are excluded from the definition of maxi cab are vehicle carrying less than 6 passengers. There is no reference in the said definition to the number of wheels the vehicle may have. Whatever be the number of wheels if the vehicle/motor vehicle comes within the definition of maxi cab that is a vehicle used to carry more than 6 passengers and less than 12 for hire or reward, the same would be a maxi cab within the definition of section 2(28). 12. Merely because the vehicle in question was allowed to be registered as an Auto Rickshaw although under the MV Act the same falls within the definition of maxi cab, the petitioner cannot sustain the claim that the vehicle is an Auto-Rickshaw and not a maxi cab. Where the Act has defined the vehicles and thereby given them certain defined nomenclatures, the same cannot be changed or altered by State circular or notification issued in that behalf. In other words an Executive instruction will be subject to any legislation holding the field or to any constitutional restraint and cannot prevail over or overide a statutory provision. A statutory provision shall at all times prevail over any rules, notifications etc. 13. Looking at from another angle, as noticed the word Auto-Rickshaw has not been defined. Where definition of word has not been made it must be construed in its popular sense. In other words in the sense with which people are conversant with the subject matter and which the statute dealing would attribute. 13. Looking at from another angle, as noticed the word Auto-Rickshaw has not been defined. Where definition of word has not been made it must be construed in its popular sense. In other words in the sense with which people are conversant with the subject matter and which the statute dealing would attribute. In the light of this Auto-Rickshaw is generally known as 3-Wheelers carrying 3 to 4 passengers. Such vehicles would not fall within the definition of maxicab as maxi cabs are vehicles used to carrying more than 6 but less than 12 passengers. 14. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the vehicle has been permitted to be plied as an Auto-Rickshaw by the Motor Vehicle Authorities, the same should be treated only as an Auto-Rickshaw cannot be accepted in the light of the subsequent notification superseding the earlier notification. The reliance of the petitioner upon the action of the Motor Vehicles Authorities has to be looked and considered in the light of the notification referred to supra. The earlier notification no. 9215-WT dated 21.10.1993 which permitted registration of the vehicle in question as Auto-Rickshaw has since been superseded by notification no. 2738-WT dated 29.3.1995. 15. Looked at from any angle this Court is of the view that 3-Wheeler vehicle used to carrying more than 6 passengers but less than 12 passengers for reward or hire would fall within the definition of maxi cab and is not entitled for the exemption from additional tax available to Auto-Rickshaws under the Additional Tax Act, 1989. 16. In the result, the above writ petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. 17. Let urgent certified xerox copy of this judgment be handed over to the learned Advocates for the appearing parties if it is applied for. Writ application dismissed.