JUDGMENT S. K. Seth, J In the present Petition, we are concerned only with the legality of levy of tax under Section 9A of M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioner is assailing the Order dated 12.2.1999 (Annexure-E), passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Division No. 3, Indore. By order impugned, Revision preferred by the Petitioner was partly allowed and levy of tax as aforesaid was upheld. Petitioner is a Registered Public Limited Company, having its branch office at Indore. Besides hire and purchase business, Petitioner also transfers right to use motor vehicle on payment of Lease Rent. As per the Assessment Order (Annexure-B), during the period from 1.5.1995 to 28.11.1995, Commercial Tax Officer, Circle 13, Indore assessed and levied tax under Section 9A of the Act on the taxable turnover and raised a demand of Rs. 1,54,041/- and also levied penalty. By the order impugned, Revisional Authority while upholding the levy of tax, however, set aside the penalty; therefore, that aspect of the matter is not under challenge and needs no further consideration in this petition. Facts mentioned above are undisputed. After having heard learned Counsels for parties and going through material available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no merit and substance in the present Writ Petition. As such it merits dismissal. Section 9A was inserted in the statute book by MPCT (Amendment) Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1.4.1995. For ready - reference, it is reproduced herein below : "Sec. 9-A : Tax on right to use. - Every dealer who transfers the right to use any goods, as the State Government may specify by notification, for any purpose, (whether or not for a specified period) to any person for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration in the course of his business, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (w) of Section 2, shall on the total amount realised or realisable by him during the year by way of payment in cash or otherwise on such transfer, pay tax at the rate of four per cent on the aggregate of such amount". Provisions contained in Section 9A of the Act are in accord with Article 366(29-A)(d) of the Constitution of India. Provisions contained in Section 9A of the Act are in accord with Article 366(29-A)(d) of the Constitution of India. From the explicit language of Section 9A, it is clear that tax is payable on the total amount realised or realisable by way of payment in the prescribed mode by a dealer during the year for transfer of the right to use specified goods. In view of this, there is no force in the contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner that no tax under Section 9A could be levied because Petitioner had parted with possession of goods (Motor Vehicles) prior to 1.5.1995. This Court is of the considered view, that transfer of right to use coupled with payment realised or realisable during the year, in the facts of present case, would attract tax liability under Section 9A of the Act. Mere parting with the vehicle prior to 1.5.1995 is of no consequence because payment in the prescribed mode for the right to use could be received in future also. No cogent and relevant material was produced by the Petitioner in support of this contention except a specimen copy of Lease Agreement (Annexure-B) conferring right to use goods (Motor Vehicle). Similarly, reliance placed on Annexure-C without relevant details and supporting documents is also of no avail. Besides that, it was for the Petitioner to satisfy Revenue Authority in this regard rather than canvassing it before this Court in the Writ Petition. From the Assessment Order (Annexure D), it is clear that Tax Consultant was present with Books of Account etc. before tax liability was determined under Section 9A of the Act for the period in question. In view of the foregoing discussion, reliance placed on the decision reported in 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 22 MTJ 416 : (2000) 119 STC 182 does not advance case of Petitioner and is clearly distinguishable in facts of the present case. In that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering the legislative competence of State Legislature to tax transaction in the course of inter-State sale. The law laid down is with regard to taxing event qua the situs of sale, which is not the question for determination in the case in hand. Thus, there is no merit in the present frivolous Writ Petition and same deserves to be dismissed with costs. The law laid down is with regard to taxing event qua the situs of sale, which is not the question for determination in the case in hand. Thus, there is no merit in the present frivolous Writ Petition and same deserves to be dismissed with costs. Office is directed to remit the security amount deposited by the Petitioner to the Secretary, M. P. State Legal Authority, High Court Bench, Indore, for proper utilization in accordance with law. In the result, Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.