ORDER Dipak Misra, J. Factual backdrop and question of law being similar, both the writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 4998/1996 are exposited. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has called in question the propriety of the demands dated 6-8-1996 and 23-8-1996 raised by the respondent No. 2, Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Kymore purporting to be towards export tax in respect of cement taken out by the petitioner from its unit situate within the Kymore Municipality. The petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to comply with the order of the State dated 15-12-1995 and to recover/collect the export tax as per the rate prescribed by the State in its order. The petitioner, a company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 has its head office at Bombay and is engaged in business of manufacture of various kinds of cement. It has one cement manufacturing plant at Kymore known as 'Kymore Cement Works'. On 22-5-1991 in exercise of powers conferred u/s 127(1) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the respondent No. 2 resolved to impose the export tax on cement and other commodities which are exported from the limit of the Kymore municipality. The notification was issued to that effect. The rate of tax prescribed on cement was half percent of the price of the cement. The notification came into effect on 19-7-1991. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impost the petitioner called in question the legality of the same in M.P. No. 2438/1991. this Court by its decision rendered on 10-5-1995 upheld the validity of the notification. Consequent upon the decision the petitioner had paid the export tax on the cement export out of the limit of Kymore Municipal area. On 15-12-1995 the State Government in exercise of powers conferred on it u/s 127 read with section 129 of the Act issued a general circular/notification directing all the Municipalities and Corporations in the State to remove the checkposts (Naka) established for recovery of export tax forthwith. State Government further directed that in order to have uniformity in the rates of export taxes all over the State an uniform rate of tax should be levied. State Government further directed that in order to have uniformity in the rates of export taxes all over the State an uniform rate of tax should be levied. It has stipulated 0.20% export tax on the price of the cement. The said notification (Annexure-P-3) was issued in supersession of all notifications issued earlier. In pursuance of the said notification the respondent No. 2 by order dated 30th January, 1996 removed all the barriers installed for making recovery. However, with regard to the second part no steps were taken. The petitioner received a notice on 6- 8-1996 followed by a letter dated 23-8-1996 requiring him to pay the export tax at the rate of 0.50 per cent on the price of the cement which was the prescribed rate as per the earlier notification. The petitioner was also required to pay the differential amount between the two rates. It is averred in the writ petition that once the State Government has issued a notification in supersession of all the earlier notifications the same has to prevail. It is also putforth that the Municipality cannot impose tax on its own as such impost is always subject to the approval of the State Government. It is further pleaded that the State Government has modified the rate on export of cement keeping various factors in view and reduced the rate to introduce uniformity in all the Municipalities. It is also stated that while obeying a part of the notification it cannot ignore the other part of the notification. this Court at the time of issuance of notice on admission and for final hearing on 9-12-1996 had permitted the petitioner to continue to deposit the export tax as specified by the State Government. An application for vacating the aforesaid order was filed by the respondent No: 2 contending, inter alia, that the earlier notification was given the stamp of approval by this Court by its decision dated 10-5-1995 and, therefore, the Municipality has the authority to collect the tax at the rate of 0.50%. Reliance was placed on a communication dated 27-5-1995 by the Deputy Director. Local Administration Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur to show the Municipal Council has right to increase, reduce or abolish the municipal tax. This matter was taken up for final disposal on consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties. The factual position is not in dispute. Reliance was placed on a communication dated 27-5-1995 by the Deputy Director. Local Administration Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur to show the Municipal Council has right to increase, reduce or abolish the municipal tax. This matter was taken up for final disposal on consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties. The factual position is not in dispute. The rate of tax fixed earlier was half per cent of the cement price and the same was upheld. this Court upheld the validity of section 129 of the unamended Act and also gave the stamp of approval to the method of estimation and collection of the tax. As the factual backdrop exposits Annexure-P-3 has been issued abolishing checkposts for collection of export tax, and reducing tax on rates of certain items. The relevant portion of the said notification read as under:-- The relevant rate is Entry 11 which reads as under:-- (1) " 0.20%" The core question that falls for consideration is whether the State Government has jurisdiction to do so and whether the Municipality is bound by it. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid notification it is apparent that it has been issued u/s 127 read with section 129 of the Act. Section 127 was amended with effect from 21-4-1997. The relevant portion of the unamended provision is reproduced below:-- "Section 127(1)- A council may, from time to time, and subject to the provisions of this Chapter, and any general or special order which the State Government may make in this behalf, impose in the whole or in any part of the Municipality any of the following taxes, for the purposes of the Act, namely:-- xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (xvi) A terminal tax on goods or animals imported into or exported from the limits of the Municipality." Section 129 was amended with effect from 1-5-1995. The said section reads as under:-- "Section 129.-- Imposition of Taxes and fees. -- (1) The council may, by a resolution, at the time of final adoption of the budget estimates for the next financial year, subject to the provisions of this Act and subject to such limitations and conditions, as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf. (a) impose any of the taxes or fees specified in this Act, or (b) increase the rates of taxes or fees already imposed. (a) impose any of the taxes or fees specified in this Act, or (b) increase the rates of taxes or fees already imposed. (2) The resolution as referred to in Sub-section (1) shall contain:-- (a) in case of imposition of any tax or fee, the provisions under which such tax or fee is being imposed, the class of persons or description of property to be taxed, the amount or rate of tax or fee being imposed, system of assessment and collection to be adopted and the date from which imposition of such tax or fee shall take effect; (b) in case of increase of rate of any tax or fee, the prevailing rate of such tax or fee, the proposed increased rate of such tax or fee and the date from which increase of rate or such tax or fee shall take effect. (3) The resolution, as passed shall be conclusive evidence of the imposition of new tax or fee, or increase of rate of any tax or fee, as the case may be; Provided that if the Council decides to have supplementary taxation during the financial year, it may do so from such date as the Council may resolve, subject to the provisions of this Act and subject to such limitations and conditions, as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf. (4) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to tax mentioned in Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of section 127 which shall be charged and levied in accordance with section 127-A." Section 130 which deals with abolition or variation in tax, reads as follows:-- "130. Abolition or variation in tax. -- The Council may, with the prior approval of the State Government, abolish, suspend or reduce the rate of any tax." It is to be noted here that the aforesaid provision has been substituted by M.P. Act 12 of 1995 with effect from 1-5-1995. Mr. Sapre, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner has urged that the State Government has the authority to provide the guidance of imposition of tax and once that is provided, it is binding on the Municipality. Mr. Mr. Sapre, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner has urged that the State Government has the authority to provide the guidance of imposition of tax and once that is provided, it is binding on the Municipality. Mr. Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Municipality, per contra, has contended that the Municipality has the authority to vary the tax as per section 130 of the Act and in any case once the rate of tax has been fixed by the Municipality the same cannot be altered by the State Government. On a plain and objective reading of section 127 it is crystal clear that the council can impose tax 'subject to' the general and special order which the State Government may make in this behalf. Even after the amendment the said language is retained. u/s 129 there is also a rider though the Council has been given some independence. Rider is 'subject to' the provision of the Act and subject to the certain limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf. On a conjoint reading of section 127 and section 129 there remains no iota of doubt that the State Government has power to lay down the guidelines. Section 129 of the Act lays down the procedure. The council has been authorised to impose tax subject to certain limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government. The language used in section 127(1) is that a Council may impose the taxes enumerated therein subject to any general or special order which the State Government may make in this behalf. Keeping in view the purpose of the State Government for fixing a uniform rate for all the Municipalities and Municipal Corporation and the power enjoined with the State Government under sections 127 and 129 of the Act, I am of the humble view that the Municipality is bound by the notification issued by the State Government inasmuch as the power rests with the State Government to do so. Hence, I am of the considered view that there is no justification on the part of the Municipality in making a demand contained in Annexures-P-4 and P-5 on the basis of rate fixed by it and accordingly they are quashed. The petitioner is not liable to pay the differential sum. Hence, I am of the considered view that there is no justification on the part of the Municipality in making a demand contained in Annexures-P-4 and P-5 on the basis of rate fixed by it and accordingly they are quashed. The petitioner is not liable to pay the differential sum. It will be liable only to pay the tax at the rate of 0.20 per cent as fixed by the State Government. However, if the petitioner has paid the tax at the rate fixed by the Municipality till the interim order passed by this Court the same shall not be refunded by the Municipality to the petitioner. Resultantly, the writ petitions are allowed without any order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed