V. K. SINGHAL, J. ( 1 ) VALIDITY of provisions of Section 8b of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Act, 1957 has been assailed in these Writ Petitions as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) PROVISIONS of Section 8b reads as under :"8b: Further Additional Tax for misuse of Motor Vehicles -when any motor vehicle in respect of which tax has been paid is misused or used not in accordance with the purpose for which the vehicle is registered or the permit is granted or is used in such manner as to cause the vehicle to become, a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable, the registered owner or person who is in possession or control of such vehicle, shall for such misuse other than the one under sub-section (4) of Section 3, pay a further additional tax of a sum which is equal to double the difference between the tax already paid and the tax which is payable in respect of such vehicle for the period for which the higher rate of tax is payable in consequence of its being misused or used not in accordance with the purpose for which the vehicle is registered or the permit is granted. " ( 3 ) EARLIER, this controversy had come before this Court in the case of CHANDRAKANTH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. ( 4 ) A distinction was brought under the provisions of Sections 8 and 8b of the Act and it was observed :"the Supreme Court observed that the demand or additional tax arises only on two occasions - (i) when the motor vehicle is altered in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which higher rate of tax is payable; and (ii)when any motor vehicle is proposed to be used in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable. The Supreme Court noticed that the vehicle in question was not altered and then proceeded to examine whether the vehicle was proposed to be used in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable. The Supreme Court noticed that the vehicle in question was not altered and then proceeded to examine whether the vehicle was proposed to be used in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable. The Supreme Court noticed that the vehicle in question was used only as a stage carriage and there was no provision in Part-A of the Schedule to the Act which required a higher rate of tax to be paid in respect of a vehicle which is being used as a stage carriage on the basis of more number of passengers that are carried in it. The supreme Court, thereupon held that in the absence of any provision in Part-A of the Schedule providing for levy of additional tax for vehicles carrying more passengers than permitted under the permit issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, the provisions of section 8 of the Act are not attracted. The Supreme Court observed that unless and until the two categories of cases set out in Section 8 are attracted the levy of additional tax is not permissible. The Decision of the Supreme Court clearly deals with a case where the vehicle carried more passengers than permitted to be carried. The Supreme Court highlighted the expression Vehicles permitted to carry' occurring in ltem-4 (2) of part-A of Schedule of the Act. The two categories of cases which attract Section 8 of the Act do not cover the cases where there is misuse of the vehicle in the sense that a vehicle registered as a goods vehicle is used for plying passengers or vice-versa. To overcome the lacuna in that respect the Legislature stepped in and amended the provisions of the Act by inserting Section 8b of the Act, it was contended by the learned Counsel that the wordings of Section 8 and Section 8b of the Act do not differ in material particulars and, therefore, once the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 8 are not attracted for recovery of additional tax, the levy under Section 8b of the Act cannot be sustained. " ( 5 ) IT was considered that Section 8b is not an improvement of Section 8 and both the Sections operated in different field. " ( 5 ) IT was considered that Section 8b is not an improvement of Section 8 and both the Sections operated in different field. The contention that the liability cannot be foisted on the owner of the vehicle for mis-use on one or two occasions by demanding difference of duty for entire quarter, was also not accepted. ( 6 ) WRIT Petitions were dismissed and then, it was held that, Section 8b does not suffer from any infirmity. ( 7 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, a Judgment was given by the Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs N. MADAPPA and OTHERS wherein the validity of sub-section (4) of section 3 was challenged. It was found that the State Legislature is not competent to levy tax on excess passenger carried by the holder of the permit under the Motor Vehicles Act. The decision given in the case of M. NARASIMHAIAH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR transport, BANGALORE DIVISION INFANTRY ROAD, bangalore AND ANOTHER was relied. It was found that the power to levy tax is on the basis of the user of the vehicle for the quarter under the Act and therefore, the provision of Section 3 (4)read with Schedule for levy of tax on excess passenger on an occasion of overloading appears to be unsustainable. It was observed that the tax in accordance with Schedule A read with Section 8 has already been levied on the basis of capacity of passengers carried in a motor permit as per the permit issued thereunder. In respect of excess passenger, on each of the occasions, there being no such provision, tax was held unsustainable as the concept of the vehicle is on the vehicle is not for a single day or an hour when the passengers were found in excess of the limit prescribed under the permit. The power to levy the tax was considered on the basis of the user of the vehicle for the quarter under the Act. On the basis, provisions of Section 3 (4) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation act were declared ultra vires. ( 8 ) IN the case of Chandrakanth's case (Supra), a reference was made to the Division Bench decision which has subsequently been reversed by the Apex Court on 2. 5. 1996 (in State of Karnataka and. Others vs N. Madappa and Others - Civil Appeal Nos. 8843-8850/96 ). ( 8 ) IN the case of Chandrakanth's case (Supra), a reference was made to the Division Bench decision which has subsequently been reversed by the Apex Court on 2. 5. 1996 (in State of Karnataka and. Others vs N. Madappa and Others - Civil Appeal Nos. 8843-8850/96 ). It was observed that the Division Bench in Madappa's case has not correctly set out the ratio of the Supreme Court Judgment in narasimhaiah's case. The Supreme Court nowhere held that it was permissible to take into account the excess passengers carried by them. It merely held that, in the absence of specific provisions occurring in ltem-4 (2) of Part-A of the Schedule to the Act, to the ' effect it was not permissible to payment of additional duty by reference to Section 8 of the act. This observation of the Division bench in the case of Chandrakanth (Supra) on the interpretation of the provision of Section 3 (4) could be construed as not correct in view of the decision given by the Apex Court in N. Madappa's case (Supra ). But we have to examine the matter in the light of the provisions of Section 8b as to whether such a provision is ultra vires the state Legislature. ( 9 ) IN order to examine the facts of the case it may be observed that here the dispute is with regard to change of stage carriage to luxury omni bus, goods vehicle to tourist omni bus, stage carriage to contract carriage, private service vehicle to contract carriage, increasing the floor area of maxi-cabs, stage carriage into tourist bus, goods vehicle to passenger vehicle and the like. ( 10 ) SECTION 3 is the charging Section which provides for levy of tax at the rate specified in Part A of the Schedule. ( 11 ) PART 'a' of the Schedule provides quarterly tax, on Goods vehicle based on ladden weight and in respect of other motor vehicle, on the basis of number of passengers permitted to be carried in the vehicle. In M. Narasimhaiah's case (Supra), it was observed that the liability to tax is governed by number of passengers permitted to be carried under the permit. In M. Narasimhaiah's case (Supra), it was observed that the liability to tax is governed by number of passengers permitted to be carried under the permit. If the words "which the vehicle is permitted to carry" are omitted, then it could have been levied on the actual number of passengers carried on in such different manner as the legislature may have though of. On the basis of stray cases of overloading tax, for the entire quarter was held impermissible. The decision of PAYNE vs ALCOCK4 was distinguished as it was found that there is no other time in Part-A of the Schedule to the act providing higher rate of tax. ( 12 ) ON behalf of the respondent, it is stated that the judgment given by the Apex Court in M. Narasimhaiah's case was for a stage carriage. In a stage carriage, if the permit is for a particular number of passengers, then, even if it is found that more passengers have been carried without changing the entry, then, there cannot be any further liability of tax, but in a case where there is change of the vehicle as above, for which, separate entry is provided under the schedule, then the tax has to be levied on the basis of the use of that vehicle and the competence of the State Legislature cannot be disputed. ( 13 ) VALIDITY of taxation has been upheld on the basis of the Judgment given by the Supreme Court. ( 14 ) ON the basis of the submissions from both the sides, and after considering the Judgment of the Apex Court, we are of the view that, in a case where the permit has been given to a stage carriage and number of passengers are found more than the permit, then there cannot be any liability of additional tax, in view of the law laid down in M. Narasimhaiah's case and also the Judgment given in N. Madappa's case. The provisions of Section 3 (4) creating liability for extra tax have already been held beyond the jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 3 (4) creating liability for extra tax have already been held beyond the jurisdiction. , ( 15 ) IN M. Narasimhaiah's case, it has been observed that, in accordance with the provision of Section 8, there can be additional tax in two circumstances; (i) when the motor vehicle is altered in a manner so as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable; (ii) when any motor vehicle is proposed to be used in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable. It was found that the case of M. Narasimhaiah was not a case of alteration of the motor vehicle and therefore, the liability under such circumstances should be, only when there is a provision in part A of the Schedule requiring higher rate of tax to be paid in respect of a vehicle to be used as a stage carriage on the basis of large number of passengers to bring within the scope of Section 8 of the Act. If the observations in the case of M. Narasimhaiah (Supra) are "taken into consideration, then, in a case where the nature of the vehicle is changed and for which there is already a provision in the schedule for levy of higher rate of tax, the tax could be charged on the basis of such use. There are different slabs of tax for Maxi-cabs on the basis of floor area as is provided under the schedule itself and if the area is changed/increased, the tax has to be charged on the basis of that change or altered or increased area. Similarly, if the goods vehicle is converted into omni/tourist bus or a stage carriage is converted into All India touris bus or a contract carriage or a luxury omnibus, then, there being different provisions in the schedule for higher rate of tax for such a change, the liability could be fixed accordingly. Similarly, if the goods vehicle is converted into omni/tourist bus or a stage carriage is converted into All India touris bus or a contract carriage or a luxury omnibus, then, there being different provisions in the schedule for higher rate of tax for such a change, the liability could be fixed accordingly. In respect of a change which is with permission, there is no problem, but if it is without permission and detected by the staff of the Department-Respondent, the liability of further additional tax equal to double the difference between the tax already paid and tax which is payable for such misuse cannot be considered to beyond the legislative competence. If the Legislature is competent to levy the tax, it has all ancillary and incident powers to provide for checking a vehicle. No one has any legal or fundamental right to evade the tax. The decision given in the case of Chandrakanth (Supra) which has also considered the judgment given in Narasimhaiah's case, was in respect of goods vehicle carrying 15 passengers. There is a provision under the Schedule for a vehicle which is used for carrying the passengers, and the liability of tax is quarterly. If the liability of tax is on the basis of the permit and there is no separate provision providing for additional tax for a different use, for which, the vehicle was found, then, the decision given in the M. Narasimhaiah's case would be applied. But, here, the cases are where the vehicle is used or converted to different use for which there are provisions for additional higher rate of tax. In such a case, provision of Section 8b cannot be declared as without jurisdiction. ( 16 ) IN the STATE OF MYSORE vs SYED IBRAHIM and the Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in V. GOVINDA rajulu AND ETC. , vs THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, it was held that the nature of the vehicle is not determinative for liability of tax, but it is the user of the vehicle. In these circumstances, all the writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is observed that in a case' where the vehicle is used with the permit granted and the tax is levied on the basis of the permit so granted without having any provision for additional tax for extra passengers, no liability can be created.