Satish Chandra, C. J. - (1.) BY a notification of January 4, 1975, the Municipal Board of Meerut imposed octroi inter alia, on the import of the Indian made foreign liquor and country liquor for consumption, use or sale therein. Messrs. Central Distillery and Chemical Works Ltd. manufactured and sold Indian made foreign liquor as well as country liquor. The Municipal Board, Meerut demanded payment of octroi. The aforesaid company denied the validity of the levy of octroi and came to this Court by way of a writ petition. The Municipal Board launched several prosecutions against the petitioner company for non-payment of the octroi dues. The petitioner company filed the connected writ petitions to quash the prosecutions. At the hearing of the writ petition, reliance was placed upon Municipal Board, Bareilly v. Bharat Oil Co. 1975 A.L.J. 84, in support of the petitioners case that the levy of the octroi was invalid. On behalf of the Municipal Board, the attention of the Bench was invited to a Supreme Court decision in Munici pality of Anand v. State of Bombay. A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 988. The Division Bench felt that in view of the Supreme Court decision, the authority of this Court in Bharat Oil Co.'s case requires reconsideration. It consequently referred the writ petitions to a Full Bench. That is how those cases have come before us. The Municipal Board, Meerut, by a notification dated August 7, 1956, imposed octroi tax on a large number of commodities. Country liquor or Indian made foreign liquor was not one of them. BY another notification of January 4, 1975, the earlier notification of August 7, 1965 was superseded and octroi was levied afresh on many commodities including country liquor of Indian made foreign liquor at the rate of Rs. 25/- and Rs. 10/- per quintal, respectively. On March 1, 1961, the State Government acting under Section 157 (3) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, granted exemption from octroi to nine commodities. Liquor manufactured in India was one of them. This exemp tion order was cancelled by a subsequent order dated September 22, 1976. As far back as October 24, 1925, the State Government had framed rules in respect of the levy of octroi. Rule 131 indicated the commodities on which octroi may ordinarily be levied. Its proviso mentioned exceptions. One such exception on which octroi would not be levied by municipal boards was "excisable liquor manufactured in India and drugs liable to excise duty''. On September 1, 1976, the State Government by a notification amended Rule 131 From the proviso, item No. 4 relating to excisable liquor, as mentioned above, was deleted. In the result, the position was that Rule 131 did not prohibit levy of octroi on Indian made foreign liquor or country liquor with effect from September 1, 1976. The exemption also came to an end on September 22, 1976. In substance, the question is whether the levy of octroi on Indian made foreign liquor and country liquor between January 4, 1975 and September 21, 1976 was legally valid. Article 246 of the Constitution read with several entries in List II of the Seventh Schedule conferred power of taxation on the State Legislatures. BY Section 128 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the State Legislature delegat ed the power to impose taxes mentioned in it to the municipal boards. Section 12S (1) provided : "128. Taxes which may be imposed (1) Subject to any general rules or special orders of the State Government in this behalf, the taxes which a board may impose in the whole or any part of a municipality are- (viii) an octroi on goods or animals brought within the municipality for consumption, use or sale therein." This provision authorises the Boards to impose in their Municipal limits the mentioned taxes but subject to any general rules or special orders of the State Government in this behalf. Sections 131 to 135 provide the procedure for making the law to impose the taxes. Though the power of the Municipal Board to impose taxes is subject to general rules or special orders of the State Government, yet Section 157 (3) authorises the State Government to make an order exempting from the pay ment of a tax any person or property. Section 296 (2) entitles the State Government to make rules. Sub-section (1) of Section 296 makes it obligatory for the State Government to make rules in respect of matters described in Sections 95, 127, 153 and 235. Section 153 relates to assessment, collection and other matters relating to taxation. For this purpose, the State Govern ment is bound to make rules. The Municipal Account Code consists of rules framed by the State Government under Section 296. Chapter II consisting of " Rules 16 to 39 deals with taxes other than octroi. Chapter IX consisting of Rules 131 to 231 relates to octroi. Rule 131 says : "131. Subject to the exceptions contained in the proviso below, octroi shall ordinarily be levied on commodities included in the following list, viz : Class I .................... ................. ......................... Provided that octroi shall not be levied on any of the following arti cles, viz : (1) ......... ......... ......... (2) ......... ......... ......... (3) ......... ......... ......... (4) Excisable liquor manufactured in India and drugs liable to excise duty : (5) ......... ......... ......... Rule 131 indicates the commodities on which ordinarily octroi may be levied. The proviso is that octroi shall not be levied on the articles mention ed in it. Relying on Bharat Oil case it was submitted that the Municipal Board had no power to impose octroi on Indian made foreign liquor and country liquor. Learned counsel for the Municipal Board countered this by submit ting that Rule 131 having been framed long before the imposition of octroi in January 1975 was invalid and ineffective. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Municipality of Anand v. State of Bombay(supra). There Section 59 of the Municipalities Act entitled the Municipality to impose named taxes in cluding octroi. This power was subject to general or special orders of the State Government. The procedure for imposition was virtually the same as in the Municipalities Act of this State. There the State Government prohibi ted the levy, after its imposition. The argument was that the prohibition order could precede and not succeed the imposition. The Supreme Court rejected this plea. Sarkar, J. speaking for the Court held that the word 'impose' in Section 59 can legitimately be construed in the sense in which the word has been used in Section 62, i. e., the word 'impose' means actual levy of the tax after the authority to levy it has been acquired by the rule duly sanctioned; and the actual levy is made subject to the general and special orders of the Government. The Government may hence an any time by any such order prohibit the imposition of such tax. The order passed after the impo sition, was valid. Ayyangar, J. further explained the matter. He held that the power to impose the tax is a continuing power in the sense that so long as it is in force, it points to the existence of and derives vitality from the power of the Authority to impose it. When the Municipality levies the tax in the sense of quantifying it with reference to an ascertained person and thereby creating a statutory debt payable by the tax payer, it is in reality exercising the power to 'impose7 the tax, for it is the continued existence of the imposition that furnishes the legal basis for the levy when made. The levy is subject to the special or general orders of government. The prohibition order having been made after octroi had been duly imposed, was valid. The provisions of the U. P. Municipalities Act are in pari materia. Sec tion 128 makes the imposition subject to general rules or special orders of the Government. The Government can hence make the general rules or the special orders only after the imposition of tax by a notification under Section 135. Rule 131 was made in 1925. The Municipal Board of Meerut imposed the octroi by notification of January 4, 1975. The rule was hence ineffective in relation to the Municipal Board, Meerut. Learned counsel for the Board, in the alternative, submitted that the proviso to Rule 131 stood superseded by rules framed by Government under Section 134 in relation to Meerut Municipality. The submission has force. Section 128 (1) confers taxing power on a Municipal Board subject to any general rules or special orders of the State Government. The general rules or special orders have to be 'in this behalf, namely, in respect of the imposition of the taxes, that is, not in relation to acquisition of power to impose, but in respect of the levy in the exercise of power, in individual cases. Rule 131 is, on its language, not a general rule in respect of the power or authority to impose. Its proviso prohibits levy on named commodities. It restricts the power to levy, namely, to assess and collect. It has been seen that Section 296 (1) makes it obligatory on the State Government to make rules in respect of matters described, inter alia, in Sec tion 153. Section 153 provides for rules as to assessment, collection and other matters relating to taxes. This is the part of the activity which may be termed as levy of the tax. Rule 131 speaks of levy' of octroi. The notifications promulgating the rules, including Rule 131 specifically say that the rules have been framed under Section 296. It appears that Rule 131 has been made under Section 296 (1) with reference to Section 153. Under sub-section (1) of Section 131, the board has to frame proposals specifying, inter alia, matters referred to in Section 153 which the State Government requires by rules to specify. Thus, even though there are in existence general rules in respect of Section 153, framed by the State Govern ment, yet a Municipal Board has to frame proposals specifying those very matters in relation to the tax which it desires to impose. Sub-section (2) of Section 131 entitles the Board to prepare draft of the rules which it desires the State Government to make in respect of matters referred to in Section 153. These draft rules are then considered by the State Government and finalised under Section 134 (1) read with Section 296. The position is that even though the State Government frames general rules under Section 153 read with Section 296 (1), it has to frame rules for the particular tax which any particular Municipal Board desires to impose, in respect of the matters referred to under Section 153. In other words, the State Government has to frame rules with respect to the levy of the tax in relation to the particular tax which an individual Board wants to impose. In contradis tinction to the rules like Rule 131, the rules framed by the Government under Section 134 may be termed as special. They are both in relation to the same subject-matter, namely, assessment, collection, etc. of the particular tax. Having come thus far there seems no difficulty in holding that if there be any conflict, the special rules which are in relation to a particular tax and a particular Municipal Board, will override or supersede the general rules fram ed by the State Government under Section 153 read with Section 296. It is worth noticing that the rules which the State Government makes under Section 134 (1) are to be made under Section 296. Both the sets of rules are thus framed under the same power and after following the same procedure (viz. Section 300). This also strengthens the conclusion that the said rules will have effect in the particular Municipality inspite of the general rules making some contrary provision. If he proposals of the rules sanctioned for a particular Municipality provide for levy i. e. assessment or collection of octroi on a particular commo dity, the levy shall be valid even though it may be prohibited by a general rule contained under the proviso to Rule 131. In the present case, the Municipal Board of Meerut imposed octroi by the notification of January 4, 1975 on Indian made foreign liquor and country liquor. This notification entitled the board to levy the tax on these commodities, notwithstanding the contrary provision in the proviso to Rule 131. The proviso to Rule 131 was modified by excluding liquor, by notification dated September 1, 1976. But inspite of this the proviso to Rule 131 was subservient in the Municipal limits of Meerut with effect from January 4, 1975, when the notification imposing the tax was gazetted. Section 157(3) of the U. P. Municipalities Act provides : "(3) The State Government may, by order, exempt from the payment of a tax, or any portion of a tax, imposed under this Act, any person or class of persons or any property or description of property." Obviously this provision comes into play after a tax has been imposed. It does not entitle the State Government to exempt from payment of a tax where the tax has been imposed at all. The order dated March 1, 1961 will not be applicable to the Municipal Board of Meerut in relation to excisable liquor be cause no octroi was imposed on it by this Municipality at any time before March 1, 1961. That order cannot be construed to mean exemption from payment of a hypothetical tax which may be imposed in future. In any event, the order of the State Government sanctioning the imposition of octroi in relation to the notification of January 4, 1975 being later, will supersede the exemption order of March 1, 1961 in relation to the Municipality of Meerut and in res pect of liquor manufactured in India. This will be the position even during the existence of this order, i. e., prior to its repeal on September 22, 1976. The decision of this Court in Bharat Oil Co. proceeded on the basis that Rule 131 was in law a fetter on the Municipal Board's power to impose tax. In its opinion, the board has no power to impose octroi on commodities men tioned in the proviso to Rule 131. As explained above, the rule did not relate to the power to imposition but on the execution of that power, by levy ing or quantifying the tax. There is no suggestion that the rules framed by the State Government for the Municipality of Meerut which were required to be framed under Section 296, were not so framed. The Bharat Oil Co.'s case has been followed in this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5643 of 1973. Municipal Board, Nagpur v. Addl. District Magistrate, Meerut and another (decided on October 24, 1977) and Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 664 of 1976. Qazi Nitntl Hasan Hamid Hussain and others v. State o/Uttar Pradesh and others (Decided on December 2u, 1977). In our view, these decisions lay down incorrect law. The imposition as well as the levy of octroi on Indian made foreign liquor as well as country liquor being valid, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs.;