ORDER : 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dated 28/8/2012 and 18/10/2012, whereby, the prayer made by the petitioners seeking exemption in terms of notification dated 9/3/2011 in special road tax has been rejected and the appeals filed by the petitioners before the Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur have also been rejected. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the petitions that the petitioners purchased new chassis of passenger vehicle in January, 2011 (in CW No. 11701/2013, 11692/2012 & 11232/2013) and in rest of the petitions (CW 11691/2013 & 11693/2013) in September, 2009 for any contingent use/need in future, therefore, they did not fabricate stage carriage body over the said chassis. 3. The State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 ('the Act, 1951') issued a notification dated 9/3/2011 providing for exemption from payment of special road tax for the new stage carriage passenger vehicles purchased after the notification and registered before 31/3/2013 plying on the rural routes. The said exemption was originally available for a period of two years from the date of registration, which was subsequently extended to one more year vide notification dated 6/3/2013. 4. It is claimed that in view of exemption of tax, the petitioners planned for fabrication of body upon the chassis already purchased by them in January, 2011 and September, 2009 and after completion of fitment of body to the chassis applied for registration and got the same registered on various dates. Whereafter, the petitioners applied and obtained permit for the vehicles to ply on the rural routes. 5. It is submitted that in view of exemption granted by the notification, the petitioners did not pay the special road tax and applied to the respondents for issuance of tax clearance certificate, however, the same was rejected on 28/8/2012 indicating that as the vehicles in question were purchased by the petitioners before the date of notification, they were not entitled to exemption in the special road tax and the appeals filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Regional Transport Officer. 6. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the rejection of petitioners' claim for exemption pursuant to the notification dated 9/3/2011 is ex facie illegal inasmuch as in terms of the said notification the petitioners had substantially complied with the requirement for getting the exemption and the refusal to extend benefit of exemption to the petitioners is not justified. 7. Submissions have been made that admittedly the petitioners got the fitment of body on the chassis of the vehicle after the exemption notification was issued and got the vehicles registered after the notification was issued and, therefore, keeping in view the purpose of exemption notification, the authority should have extended the benefit to the petitioners and, therefore, action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be set aside and the petitioners be held entitled to exemption from special road tax and the amount deposited by the petitioners during the period of exemption be ordered to be refunded back. 8. Reliance has been placed on the judgments in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. J.K.Synthetics : (2000) 10 SCC 393 , Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. M/s Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors. : (2011) 1 SCC 236 and Govt. of Kerala & Anr. vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent : (2021) 5 SCC 602 . 9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the exemption notification clearly provided that the new stage carriage passenger vehicles should have been purchased after the date of notification and as, admittedly, the vehicles in question were purchased by the petitioners prior to 9/3/2011, the date of notification, irrespective of the plea raised that the body was got fitted on the chassis after the issuance of the notification and that the same were got registered thereafter is of no consequence and, therefore, the petitions deserve dismissal. 10. Further submissions have been made that it is well settled that the exemption notification has to be strictly construed. Assessee has to first establish that he is entitled to exemption and, thereafter, in case of any ambiguity in the charging provision, the benefit may be given to the subject. 11. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Company & Ors. : (2018) 9 SCC 1 . 12. Assessee has to first establish that he is entitled to exemption and, thereafter, in case of any ambiguity in the charging provision, the benefit may be given to the subject. 11. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Company & Ors. : (2018) 9 SCC 1 . 12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13. The facts are not in dispute, wherein, though the petitioners have purchased the chassis in question in September, 2009 and January, 2011. 14. The notification under the provisions of the Act, 1951 was issued on 9/3/2011, which inter alia reads as under: "S.O.601.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (Act No.11 of 1951), the State Government being of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the new stage carriage passenger vehicles, purchased after the date of this notification and registered before 31/3/2013 and plying exclusively on rural routes and other routes (as classified under the provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990) from the payment of special road tax payable under Sec. 4-B of the said Act for period of two years from the date of their registration." 15. A bare reading of the notification reveals that for seeking exemption under the said notification, the new stage carriage vehicles must have been purchased after the date of the notification, registered before 31/3/2013 and must be plied exclusively on rural routes and other routes (as classified under the provisions of the Rules, 1990). Admittedly, as the vehicles in question were all purchased before the date of notification, the threshold condition of the notification regarding purchase of the vehicle after the date of notification is not fulfilled. 16. The submission made that as the fitment of body over the vehicles was got done after the date of notification and same were got registered before the cut off date indicated in the notification, on account of substantial compliance, the petitioners are entitled to exemption, apparently has no substance. 17. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar (supra) with respect to the interpretation of exemption notification inter alia came to the following conclusion: "52. 17. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar (supra) with respect to the interpretation of exemption notification inter alia came to the following conclusion: "52. To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under (1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. (2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. (3) The ratio of Sun Export case is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case stands overruled." 18. The Hon'ble Court held that the exemption notification should be interpreted strictly and the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. 19. Further, in State of Maharashtra vs. Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal & Ors. : (2022) 2 SCC 725 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the judgment in the case of Dilip Kumar (supra) inter alia came to the following conclusion: "12. In Dilip Kumar, five-Judge bench of this Court has held that in every taxing statute –– the charging, the computation and exemption provisions at the threshold stage should be interpreted strictly. In case of ambiguity in case of charging provision, the benefit necessarily must go into favour of the subject/assessee. This means that the subject of tax, the person liable to pay tax and the rate at which the tax is to be levied have to be interpreted and construed strictly. If there is any ambiguity in any of these three components, no tax can be levied till the ambiguity or defect was removed by the legislature [See pages 53 to 55 in Dilip Kumar]. However, in case of exemption notification or clause, same is to be allowed based wholly by the language of the notification, and exemption cannot be gathered by necessary implication, or on a construction different from the words used by reference to the object and purpose of granting exemption [See Hansraj Gordhandas Vs. CCE]. 13. However, in case of exemption notification or clause, same is to be allowed based wholly by the language of the notification, and exemption cannot be gathered by necessary implication, or on a construction different from the words used by reference to the object and purpose of granting exemption [See Hansraj Gordhandas Vs. CCE]. 13. Further it is for the assessee to show by construction of the exemption clause/notification that it comes within the purview of exemption. The assessee/citizen cannot rely on ambiguity or doubt to claim benefit of exemption. The rationale is not to widen the ambit at the stage of applicability. However, once the hurdle is crossed, the notification is constructed liberally [See CCE vs. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. and Union of India vs. Wood Papers Ltd.]. Thus, distinction can be made between the substantive requirements that require strict compliance, non-compliance of which would render the assessee ineligible to claim exemption, and the procedural or compliance provision which can be interpreted liberally. 20. The Court reiterated the settled position that substantive requirements require strict compliance, non-compliance of which would render the assessee ineligible to claim exemption and procedural or compliance provision can be interpreted liberally. 21. In the present case, the requirement of purchase of vehicle after the date of notification, in no uncertain terms is substantive requirement and cannot be termed as procedural or compliance and, therefore, the very fact that the petitioners have failed to comply with the said requirement, rejection of their prayer seeking exemption of special road tax cannot be faulted. 22. So far as the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, in the case of J.K. Synthetics (supra), the reason indicated for denial of benefit under the notification was failure to follow the procedure laid down in the rules, which is not the case here and in the case of Hari Chand Shri Gopal (supra) also the distinction was between the provisions of the exemption notification being procedural and substantive and it was held that once the assessee the satisfied the eligibility clause the exemption clause may be construed liberally. Admittedly, the petitioners have failed to satisfy the eligibility clause i.e. 'purchase of vehicle after the date of notification'. 23. Admittedly, the petitioners have failed to satisfy the eligibility clause i.e. 'purchase of vehicle after the date of notification'. 23. Similarly, in the case of Mother Superior Adoration Convent (supra), the court was dealing with the exemption provision which had the beneficial purpose and observed that the beneficial purpose of exemption contained in the provision must be given full effect, as opposed to exemptions generally in tax statutes. Admittedly, the present case pertains to a tax statute and, therefore, the said judgment also has no application to the facts of the present case. 24. In view of the above discussion, as the petitioners have failed to comply with the basic threshold requirement of seeking exemption under the notification dated 9/3/2011, the rejection of their application seeking exemption cannot be faulted. Consequently, the petitions have no substance and the same are, therefore, dismissed.