( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of a public carrier, for which the permit was granted by the Transport authorities in Andhra Pradesh and the same was countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Mysore. He was required to operate the said vehicle on specified routes lying in the State of mysore. ( 2 ) ON 26-4-1971 when the petitioner's vehicle was checked by the inspector of Motor Vehicles, he found that the said vehicle was plying frorn Royalapad to Bangarpet via Kolar. The route Kolar-Bangarpet was not admittedly one of the specified routes for which counter-signature was given. Notice to show cause was, therefore, issued to the petitioner by the regional Transport Officer, Kolar on 27-4-71 calling upon him why an additional sum of Rs. 400 as penalty cannot be levied under the Mysore Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. The petitioner showed some cause, but it was not accepted. The petitioner was ordered to pay a penalty, in addition to the tax for the quarter ending 30th June, 1971. ( 3 ) APPEAL preferred by the petitioner against the said order before the Commissioner for Transport, was dismissed by the order dt. 20th July, 1971. Hence he has approached this Court for relief under Article 227. ( 4 ) THE sole question for decision is, whether the petitioner is entitled to the exemption provided by the notification No. HD 128 (2) MVA 57, dt. 28-3-1959 despite his violation of the conditions of the counteragnature. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out the said notification which reads thus :" Whereas the Government of Mysore are of opinion that it is necessary in public interest to exempt the tax payable under the mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957-in respect of transport vehicles registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh and plying in the State of Mysore as specified hereinafter: now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) of S. 16 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Mysore Act 35 of 1957) and in pursuance of the reciprocal arrangement entered into with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, under S3 (3) of the said- act in regard to taxation of transport vehicles plying on inter-State routes between Mysore and Andhra Pradesh, the Government of mysore hereby direct that the transport vehicles registered in the state of Andhra Pradesh and plying regularly on inter-State routes between Mysore and Andhra Pradesh under the reciprocal arrangement agreed to between the two States be exempt from payment of tax in this State under the said Act, provided that tax for the period has been paid in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This notification shall come into effect from 1st April, 1959. " ( 6 ) IN order to claim exemption under the above notification the vehicle for which permit or the counter-signature was granted, must be operated regularly on inter-State routes between Mysore and Andhra Pradesh under the reciprocal arrangement agreed to between the two States. Mr. Chandiakantaraj Urs, learned High Court Government Advocate contended that if the vehicle is found plying on any other route, such vehicle is not exempted from payment of tax in this State. ( 7 ) I do not think that that contention could be accepted. In D. Vengiah Setty v. Transport Commr, WP. 2432/66 dt. 7-7-1969. a similar question arose for consideration. In that case the owner of a stage carriage was found plying his vehicle during certain period when he had not obtained the, counter-sig- -nature. The authorities held that the vehicle in question was not liable to be exempted from payment of tax under the said notification. But the court did not accept that view. Chandrashekhar, J. , speaking for the btncb said thus :" The notification does not require that the plying of a transport vehicle on an inter-State route should be in pursuance of a valid permit or a counter-signature. In a taxing statute, when an activity is made liable for tax, the legality or illegality of such activity is immaterial for determining liability for tax unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication states that such activity is liable to tax, only if it is not illegal. In a taxing statute, when an activity is made liable for tax, the legality or illegality of such activity is immaterial for determining liability for tax unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication states that such activity is liable to tax, only if it is not illegal. Likewise, in considering the applicability of an exemption from tax, for an activity the legality or illegality of that activity is immaterial in the absence of the words, expressly or by necessary implication, restricting such exemption only to lawful activities, in the said notification, we do not find any words which, expressly or by necessary implication, restrict the exemption to vehicles plying under valid permits or counter-signatures. If a vehicle was plying within Mysore State without a counteraignature, the holder of the permit in respect of such vehicle could have been prosecuted or subjected to other penalties under the Motor vehicles Act or other laws. But that would not be a ground for not giving him the benefit of exemption if he otherwise came within the ambit of such exemption. " ( 8 ) IN the present case if the petitioner was found plying his vehicle once on an unspecified route, it may be a good reason to take action against the petitioner as he has contravened the condition of the grant and the counter-signature. But the authorities cannot say that the vehicle is not entiled to the, exemption provided by the said notification, so long as the said vehicle was registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh and permitted to ply on the inter-State route agreed upon by the reciprocal arrangement bewten the two States. Breach of any condition of the permit or its counter-signature has to be dealt with under the appropriate law and not by withdrawing the exemption provided by the said notification. ( 9 ) IN the result, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders of the respondents. No costs in the circumstances. --- *** --- .