R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. A. Y. Kogje, learned Assistant Government pleader, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the act of the respondents asking him to pay the tax on the total capacity of the bus, which includes sitting arrangement and the sleeper berths, treating the whole bus as a sleeper designated omnibus, is before this Court with a submission that according to Sec. 3a of the Bombay motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 ("the Act" for short), the omnibuses have been classified as ordinary designated omnibuses/luxury or tourist designated omnibuses and the rate of tax is provided under Sec. 3a of the Act, but the Home Department has issued a Notification dated 1st April, 2002 where-under they have inserted clause 1aa in the Schedule appended to the earlier Notification and have provided tax liability on sleeper designated omnibuses. His submission is that no problem would arise in a case where the bus is an ordinary designated omnibus or luxury/ tourist designated omnibus, and/or a sleeper designated omnibus, but the problem arises in a case where a particular bus has a sitting capacity and also provides berths for sleep to some passengers. According to him, in a case of joint user of such a bus, the tax is to be levied per passenger per seat at a particular rate, and for every sleeper berth, the tax is to believed in view of the sleeper capacity. The further submission is that the petitioners bus has a capacity of 31 passengers sitting and 15 passengers sleeping, therefore, for the sitting capacity, the tax is to be charged under Clause 1 or 2 of the Notification and for the sleeper facility, the tax is to be charged on the basis of number of sleeper berths. His submission is that the respondents are illegally demanding the tax at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per berth though the capacity of sleepers is 15 only and that the petitioner can be charged at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per berth. His submission is that the respondents are illegally demanding the tax at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per berth though the capacity of sleepers is 15 only and that the petitioner can be charged at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per berth. It is also submitted that clarifying the position, a departmental circular dated 8th august, 2005 was issued by the Joint Transport Commissioner, Gujarat that the number of seats and berths are to be separately calculated, but the Taxing department is not observing the said circular and are charging the tax illegally. The submission is that the respondents deserve a direction that the petitioner can be charged tax on 15 berths at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per berth. It is also submitted that if the number of sleeper berths is only 15, then the respondents would not be justified in charging at the rate of Rs. 12,000/-, as the said taxing provision is applicable to the capacity of more than 20 sleeper berths. ( 3 ) ON a notice to the other side, Mr. A. Y. Kogje, learned Assistant government Pleader, appeared and submitted that the Departmental Circular dated 8th August, 2005 has been put into abeyance by yet another Official Circular dated 19th September, 2005 issued by the Joint Director of Transport. His further submission is that vide Notification dated 6th July, 2002, the Gujarat Motor vehicles (First Amendment) Rules, 2002 have been brought into force wherein a "sleeper designated omnibuses" has been defined to mean any Contract Carriage constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver with a facility of comfortable sleep on berth and in view of the said definition, the whole bus is to be treated as a sleeper designated omnibus and the Department is justified in charging the tax on the full capacity of the buses. ( 4 ) SECTION 3a of the Act provided description of the designated omnibuses and further directed that at a particular rate, tax would be charged per passenger on ordinary designated omnibuses and at a different rate, tax would be charged per passenger on luxury or tourist designated omnibuses. ( 4 ) SECTION 3a of the Act provided description of the designated omnibuses and further directed that at a particular rate, tax would be charged per passenger on ordinary designated omnibuses and at a different rate, tax would be charged per passenger on luxury or tourist designated omnibuses. ( 5 ) BY Notification dated 1st April, 2002, an amendment has been made in the Governments Home Department Notification No. GHG/98/129/mta/1098/kh dated 31st July, 1998, which reads as under : in the Schedule appended to the said Notification, in Part 1 after clause 1a the following clause shall be inserted namely : i-AA Sleeper designated omnibuses :- ( 6 ) THE amendment made on 1st April, 2002 says that tax shall be charged on sleeper designated omnibuses : @ Rs. 9,000/- per passenger, which the vehicle is licensed to carry where the omnibus is licensed to carry not more than 20 passengers; and @ Rs. 12,000/- per passenger in case it is licensed to carry more than 20 passengers. ( 7 ) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the sitting capacity and the sleeper capacity are to be separately calculated, and then the tax is to be charged. In absence of the artificial definition of the sleeper designated omnibus, the argument would have been a valid argument, but the petitioner has lost sight of the fact that the charging section and the provisions do not say that the tax is to be charged on the berth. The charging section says that the tax is to be charged on the buses, which are sleeper designated omnibuses. The taxing statutes are to be understood as those are. neither a word is to be deleted nor a word is to be added to it. If there is some scope for ambiguity, then the interpretation should be made in favour of the assessee, but the equity would have no role in interpretation of the taxing statute. If the taxing statute says that the bus is to be designated as a sleeper designated omnibus and the tax is to be charged per passenger, then whether there are passengers, who are sleeping or passengers who are sitting, would not make any material difference and the tax will have to be paid on the number of passengers, which are allowed to be carried in the licence. The respondents, in our considered opinion, are charging the tax on correct interpretation of the provisions of law. We find no reason to interfere or issue any directions. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. Petition dismissed. .