Order By CourtHeard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner had initially prayed for relief that petitioner is not liable to pay additional tax under the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994 for the buses run by the petitioner-school only for the purpose of carrying the students and staff of the school for which demand letters have been issued by the respondents under the Act of 1994. Then, petitioner, by way of amendment, included the relief that provision of Section 5(2) of the Act of 1992 be declared ultra vires so far as it provides for levy of additional tax on educational institution bus as it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the buses run by the petitioner-school are solely and entirely for the purpose of facilitating the journey of the students and staff from their respective residences to the school and back. These vehicles cannot be equated with the commercial vehicles in any manner. Not only this, these vehicles are not burden upon the road as it is not a vehicle of commercial nature or public transport or heavy vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the taxes are levied on the vehicles according to their use as less tax is levied upon the light motor vehicle and as the vehicle increases in its weight and carrying capacity, then tax is increased which is clear from even the categorization of the vehicles provided in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also submitted that the school buses are running for very short distance and they remain idle for more time their plying in any day. The petitioner has challenged the validity of Section 5(2) of the Act of 1992 because of inclusion of the word only "transport vehicle" without including the specific category of the vehicle, "educational school bus" which is a specific category under Sub Section 11 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which clearly indicate that the Act has no intention to include the "educational institution buses" in the Act of 1994 for levying of the additional tax. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently submitted that the road tax as well as additional tax are compensatory tax and, therefore, they can be levied on the basis of the use of the vehicle and not on the basis of some whims. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon various judgements in support of his contention which we shall be dealing hereinafter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that earlier there was another enactment i.e., Bihar Taxation on Passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961 which was repealed with effect from 01.04.1982. The tax which was leviable under the Act of 1961 is now levied in the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 in the name of levying additional tax and in the Act of 1961 tax not leviable upon the Education School Buses. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, once the tax was not leviable under the Act of 1961 upon the school buses run by the educational institution, then there is no justification for imposition of additional tax under the Act of 1994. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the decision given by this Court in the case of D.A.V. College Management Committee Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 59 , the transport authorities themselves were not recovering any additional tax and immediately after this decision, the transport authorities issued demand notices demanding the additional tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the said judgement has not relevance with the additional tax. 7. Transport vehicle has been defined in Sub Section 47 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is as under :- (47)."transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle; 8. From bare perusal of Sub Section (II) of Section 2 read with Sub-section 47 of the same section 2 it is apparent that in the definition of "transport vehicle", the educational institution buses have been included the definition and category of transport vehicles in spite of the fact that in Sub Section 11 of Section 2 of the Act of 1988, the educational institution buses are separately defined. Sub Section 11 of Section 2 is as under :- (11)"educational institution bus" means an omnibus, which is owned by a college, school or other educational institution and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities; 9. Therefore, in the Central Act of 1988, educational institution bus has been included along with the public service vehicles, goods carriage at par with private service vehicle. This inclusion of the "educational institution bus" in the definition of transport vehicle under Sub Section 47 of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 is not under challenge. 10 .Section 5 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 provides for the levy of tax and Sub Section 2 of Section 5 which is under challenge which provides that owner of a registered motor vehicle shall pay additional motor vehicle tax on such vehicle at the rate specified in Schedule-II. Therefore, this provision only says that the registered owner of the motor vehicle shall be liable to pay additional tax. Sub Section 2 of Section 5 is as under :- (2)Subject to other provisions of this Act, on an from the date of commencement of this Act, every owner of a registered motor vehicle shall pay Additional Motor Vehicles Tax on such vehicle at the rate specified in Schedule II. 11. In Schedule-II, the class of vehicles have been given over which the additional tax shall be levied at the rate given against that category of vehicle. The category of vehicle which has been covered by Schedule-II are, goods carriage excluding trailers :- 1.Goods carriage excluding trailer, 2.Motor cabs. 3.Transport vehicles excluding goods carriage and motor cabs (with certain requirements). 4. Trailer. 12.As we have already stated that the definition of transport vehicle is not under challenge before us and learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the petitioner is paying the road tax on the school buses at par with the tax which is leviable upon the other type of the vehicles named in the definition of the transport vehicle given in Sub Section 47 of Section 2 of the Act of 1988. Therefore, petitioner who did not challenges the definition of the transport vehicle which included the educational institution buses in the definition and category of transport vehicle and are paying the road tax as such, yet they have only objection with respect to the levy of additional tax by projecting the difference in use of vehicle only for the purpose of levy of additional tax. Meaning thereby, the root of the additional tax is leviable according to the writ petitioner himself and his contention is that even then he is not liable to pay the additional tax. If the contention of the writ petitioner is accepted, then that will make one vehicle covered by one definition in two categories of vehicle. One for the purpose of levying of tax and another for the purpose of levy of additional tax. One, at par with other vehicles, which are included in the definition of transport vehicle for the purpose of levy of road tax whereas for the purpose of levy of additional tax, that particular vehicle shall stand excluded. Further more, according top writ petitioner itself the tax in either case is levied according to vehicles use on the road and it's siting capacity. The petitioner failed to justify how there case be given different treatment to the vehicle for taxing in that fact situation? Also apart from the fact that there is no reason to treat these vehicles different when they are treated at part in Sub Section 47 of Section 2 of the Act of 1988. 13.Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India & others, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 519 . The case was in relation to order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein directions were given to implement the order of the Supreme Court to allow only the CNG operated buses in Delhi and in that matter the educational institution buses were given exemption by holding that the educational institution buses are not the commercial vehicles. Issue in this case, in substance was, whether school buses are creating the same pollution as at par with other vehicles. 14.The another judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Registering Authority & Others reported in AIR 1999 SC 3430 . Issue in this case, in substance was, whether school buses are creating the same pollution as at par with other vehicles. 14.The another judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Registering Authority & Others reported in AIR 1999 SC 3430 . The judgement is also with respect to the challenge to higher rate of tax under entry 4 of the Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1986 wherein issue was with respect to the vehicle which are plied for "hire or reward" and Hon'ble Supreme Court held that vehicles used only as an amenity extended to children of employees to attend school or college then vehicle cannot be treated as being plied for hire or reward. Such is not the issue even remotely, here in this case. 15.Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgement of the Allahabad High Court delivered in the case of I.T.I. Limited Vs. Passenger Tax Officer, Allahabad reported in AIR 1996 Allahabad 79 wherein also the vehicles in question were used for carrying on employees and their children under a welfare scheme and those were treated as private service vehicles holding that passenger tax cannot be levied on such vehicles under the U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatrikar) Adhiniyam (8 of 1962). 16.We have referred the above judgements only because of the reason that learned counsel for the petitioner believe that those judgements support the petitioner's case whereas the facts of the case referred above clearly demonstrate that those were the cases wherein the issue was not at all involved that whether the educational institution bus is a transport vehicle or not and inclusion of the educational institution bus in the definition of the transport vehicle under Sub Section 47 of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 is ultra vires to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, those judgements have no application to the facts of this case. 17.In Taxing Statute, are required to read as they are and strict interpretation is given in accordance with the language used in the statute and not on the basis of the claim of equity or any other consideration. The Taxing Statute are required to be strictly followed. 17.In Taxing Statute, are required to read as they are and strict interpretation is given in accordance with the language used in the statute and not on the basis of the claim of equity or any other consideration. The Taxing Statute are required to be strictly followed. 18.We are of the considered opinion that once the educational institution bus has been included in the category of transport vehicle and validity of that provision is not under challenge and the petitioner himself has accepted. This position and paying the road tax levied because of that categorization has no right to challenge the additional tax on the ground that the motor vehicles plied by the educational institutions have limited role and meant for only limited purpose. 19.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of D.A.V. College Management Committee (Supra) has no application and the transport authorities have committed error by demanding the additional tax after the decision given in that D.A.V. College Case. 20.Earlier some concession in tax was granted to the educational institution buses and that was withdrawn then that withdrawal was challenged. The challenge to that withdrawal of the concession was rejected by the Single Bench of this Court in the above case of D.A.V. College Management Committee (Supra) meaning thereby, in that judgment also levying of the road tax on the educational institution buses were treated at par with the other vehicles included in the definition of the transport vehicle under Sub Section 47 of Section 2 of the Act, 1988. Therefore, said judgment did not accept the plea of the educational institutional bus owner's to treat their buses separate from other vehicles or the buses of their limited use, hence was relevant. 21.Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, has shown copies of two orders passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 1795 of 1989 (R) dated 20.12.1989 and order dated 15.02.1990 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 248 of 1990 (R) and also one more order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1114 of 1990(R). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in these orders, it has been held that the vehicles, like the vehicles in question, are not liable to the additional tax. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in these orders, it has been held that the vehicles, like the vehicles in question, are not liable to the additional tax. However, we found that order in C.W.J.C No. 1795 of 1989 is with respect to the vehicles, dumper, tipper etc. wherein it has been observed that whether such vehicles are service vehicles or not is a question of fact and without ascertaining that, no direction can be given to deposit the additional tax under the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930. In this order it has been observed that unless it has been held that the vehicles in question are the public service motor vehicles, no additional tax is payable and it nowhere decides any issue. 22.In the order dated 15.02.1990 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 248 of 1990 (R) also, the question was whether the vehicles of the petitioner are public service motor vehicle or not and question of public service motor vehicle is not decided at all. The additional tax under the Act of 1930 and Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 was held not payable. 23.In the order dated 03.07.1990 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1114 of 1990 (R) also, none of the questions have been decided and none of the arguments which have been raised by the petitioner was under consideration for decision of the Benches and those cases were decided on the facts of the case and not decided the issue which has been raised by the petitioner in this petition and, therefore, has no application in this case. 24.In view of the above reason, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.