SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demand any amount of additional tax from them. ( 2 ) THE version of petitioner No. 1 is that he is registered owner of Goods Carriage Vehicle No. UP 65 F-4152, petitioner No. 2 is the registered owner of vehicle No. UP-67-5394 and petitioner No. 3 is the registered owner of vehicle No. UP-65-C-8098 (bus ). They were plying their vehicles on temporary permit/special permit. In para 15 of the writ petition, it is stated that the vehicles of the petitioners are not now covered with any permit as such they are not liable to pay any amount of additional tax. ( 3 ) WE have heard Sri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. P. Kesarwani, learned Standing Counsel. ( 4 ) THERE are two questions, first in regard to liability to pay additional tax under S. 6 of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (in short the act) in respect of the vehicles being operated without permits and second if the additional tax is payable what would be its rate on such vehicles. Section 6 of the Act reads as under :-"6. Additional tax on public service vehicle.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act or the rules made thereunder, no public service vehicle, other than those owned or controlled by the State transport undertaking shall be operated in any public place in Uttar Pradesh unless there has been paid in respect thereof, in addition to the tax payable under S. 4, an additional tax at the rate applicable to such public service vehicle specified in the Fourth Schedule : provided that the State Government may, by notification, increase by not more than fifty per cent. , the rates of additional tax specified in the said Schedule. (2) The additional tax in respect of a public service vehicle owned or controlled by a State Transport Undertaking shall be levied and paid in accordance with the formula specified in the Fifth Schedule. , the rates of additional tax specified in the said Schedule. (2) The additional tax in respect of a public service vehicle owned or controlled by a State Transport Undertaking shall be levied and paid in accordance with the formula specified in the Fifth Schedule. (3) Where a public service vehicle is wholly or partially exempted from the payment of additional tax by or under this Act a surcharge for the purpose of the fund established under S. 8 shall be levied on its operator at the rate of five per cent of the additional tax that would have been payable on such vehicle had it not been so exemptedand such amount shall be credited to the said fund. " ( 5 ) SECTION 6 of the Act does not make any difference in regard to liability to pay additional tax whether any permit has been obtained of such vehicle or not by the operator. It provides that no public service vehicle other than those owned or controlled by the State Transport Undertaking shall be operated in any public place in Uttar Pradesh unless there has been paid in respect thereof, in addition to the tax payable under S. 4, an additional tax at the rate applicable to such public service vehicle specified in the Fourth Schedule. The controversy in regard to the liability to pay additional tax by such operators, who had no permits, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in H. C. Misra v. State of U. P. , 2000 All LJ 2627 and it was held that the additional tax under S. 6 of the Act in respect of public service vehicle is payable even though no permit has been obtained to operate such vehicles. The Court observed as under :-"the liability to pay additional tax under S. 6 is in respect of a public service vehicle, i. e. a motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for carriage of passenger for hire or reward irrespective of whether a permit has been obtained or not in respect of such vehicle for carriage of passengers for hire or reward. " ( 6 ) THE next question is in regard to the rate of tax. Sub-section (1) of S. 6 provides that the additional tax shall be payable at the rate applicable to such public service vehicle as is specified in the Fourth Schedule. " ( 6 ) THE next question is in regard to the rate of tax. Sub-section (1) of S. 6 provides that the additional tax shall be payable at the rate applicable to such public service vehicle as is specified in the Fourth Schedule. The Fourth Schedule provides the rate of additional tax in respect of stage carriages including stage carriages covered by temporary permits and contract carriages as well vehicles covered by permit under sub-section (9) of S. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators) Rules, 1993. The Fourth Schedule does not exclude such vehicles for which permits were not obtained by the operators. In this situation of rate of additional tax which is applicable for the vehicles running on permits shall be made applicable. It will be incongruous that additional tax may be levied on such vehicles for which the permits have been obtained but not payable by vehicles which are running without obtaining valid permits. In H. C. Misras case (supra) the Court took the view that the additional tax is payable on the public service vehicles as provided under S. 6 of the Act and mere fact that that there is no specific rate prescribed in the Fourth Schedule for the vehicles without obtaining the permits, will not make any difference. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that in H. C. Misras case (supra) the Court observed that the operators may be subjected to such penal liabilities as may be permissible in law for violating S. 16 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Act,1988 but they cannot be held liable to pay additional tax at the highest rate specified in Fourth Schedule in the absence of any specific provision in the Statute in that respect. In this case, the Court was considering the validity of a Circular dated 25/01/1999 issued by the Transport Commissioner, U. P. whereby he directed that the additional tax payable in respect of vehicles being operated without permits sould be computed at the highest rate specified in the Fourth Schedule. The Court did not upheld the validity of the Circular on the ground that the additional tax cannot be fixed at the highest rate specified in the Fourth Schedule merely because the operator had not obtained permit. The Court did not upheld the validity of the Circular on the ground that the additional tax cannot be fixed at the highest rate specified in the Fourth Schedule merely because the operator had not obtained permit. The fixing of rate of additional tax is Legislative function and this function cannot be assumed by the Transport Commissioner. ( 8 ) THE petitioners in this writ petition have not stated that the respondents are demanding additional tax at the highest rate specified in the Fourth Schedule. The petitioners cannot escape liability to pay additional tax merely on the ground that the petitioners have not obtained permit for operating the vehicle in question. The petitioners have to pay additional tax as specified in the Fourth Schedule, which may be applicable in respect of the vehicles operating on valid permits. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .