M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN these two petitions, the following question of law arises for consideration : (1) Whether vehicles in respect of which special permit had been issued under S. 63 (6) of the Indian motor Vehicle Act, 1939, by the competent authorities in the State of An- dhra Pradesh, could be seized under s. 11-A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, on the ground that the vehicles were being used in this State for a purpose other than the one for which special per- mit had been issued and consequently liable to pay tax to this State ? ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : the petitioners are motor vehicle operators in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In respect of two motor vehicles they have secured special permits under sub- sec. (6) S. 63 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) to ply them as public service vehicles for carrying passengers for hire or reward under a contract. The vehicles were seized by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles in purported exercise of his powers under s. 11-A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles taxation Act 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Taxation Act) on the ground that they were found to have been using them as stage carriage vehicles in this state, and, therefore, liable to pay tax under the Taxation Act. Aggrieved by the seizure of the vehicles, the petitioners have presented these two petitions. ( 3 ) SRI C. Narasimhachar. Aggrieved by the seizure of the vehicles, the petitioners have presented these two petitions. ( 3 ) SRI C. Narasimhachar. learned counsel for the petitioners urged the following contentions :- (I) In view of the Notification issued by the State Government under S. 16 read with S. 3 (3) of the Taxation Act, the vehicles in question have been exempted from payment of tax under the Taxation Act and therefore even assuming that the vehicles were being used in contravention of the conditions of the permit no tax was payable under the Act and consequently s. 11-A did not empower the seizure of the vehicles ; (II) In any event even assuming that the petitioners could be assessed to tax under the Taxation Act for using the vehicles for a purpose other than the one for which the permit was issued, it was not competent for the authorities to seize the vehicles unless the liability to pay tax was determined after following the procedure prescribed under the Taxation act. Sri B. B. Mandappa, learned High court Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents per contra contended that though the vehicles in respect of which special permits have been obtained in some other State under S. 63 (6) of the act are exempted from payment of tax in this State, the competent authority of the state functioning under the Taxation Act could seize such vehicle if it was found to have been used in this State either as a stage carriage or contract carriage. ( 4 ) S. 3 of the Taxation Act provides that a tax at the rates specified in Part-A of the schedule shall be levied on all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads. Sub-sec. (3) of the said section empowers the State Government to exempt vehicles registered in another State, in conformity with the reciprocal arrangement relating to taxation entered into between the Government of Karnataka and any other state Govt. S. 16 of the Taxation Act empowers the State Government to grant exemption from payment of tax under the Taxation Act subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be notified in the Notification. In terms of these provisions, the State Government has issued a Notification dt, 22-11-1962 which reads as follows :- no. HD 72 TMT 61, Bangalore, dated 22nd Nov. 1962. In terms of these provisions, the State Government has issued a Notification dt, 22-11-1962 which reads as follows :- no. HD 72 TMT 61, Bangalore, dated 22nd Nov. 1962. "whereas the Government of karnataka are of opinion that it is necessary in public interest to exempt on reciprocal basis the tax payable under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles taxation Act, 1957, in respect of Motor Vehicles registered in any State other than Karnataka or Union Territory in India and chartered by tourists as specified hereinafter; now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) of S. 16 read with sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles taxation Act, 1957, (Karnataka Act 35 of 1957), the Government of Karnataka hereby exempt the tax payable under the said Act in respect of any Motor Vehicle registered in any state other than the State of Karnataka and Union Territories in India, provided that the tax has been paid in the State where it is registered and valid tax token obtained for the period, and that the special distinguishing mark in the form and manner prescribed by the Govt. of India under sub-sec. (6) of S. 63 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is displayed on the vehicle. " ( 5 ) FROM the reading of the above notification it may be seen that a motor vehicle belonging to any other State is exempted from payment of tax under the act subject to the following four conditions :. (I) The vehicle should have been registered in any other State ; (ii) Tax payable to that State should have been paid ; (iii) Valid tax token should have been obtained for the relevant period ; and (iv) The special distinguishing mark in the form or manner prescribed by the government of India under sub-sec. (6) of S. 63 should be displayed on the vehicle. ( 6 ) IT is not the case of the respondents that any one of the conditions mentioned above was not existing in respect of the two vehicles seized. The vehicles had been registered in the State of An- dhra Pradesh, tax due to that State had been paid and valid tax token had been obtained. The special distinguishing mark had also been displayed- on the vehicles. There is no other condition which is required for claiming the exemption under the provisions of the Act. The vehicles had been registered in the State of An- dhra Pradesh, tax due to that State had been paid and valid tax token had been obtained. The special distinguishing mark had also been displayed- on the vehicles. There is no other condition which is required for claiming the exemption under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the date when the vehicles were seized any tax was due from the petitioners to this State in respect of the said vehicles. S. 11-A of the Act, which empowers the authorities to seize and detain the vehicle, reads as follows :" 11 A. Power to seize and detain vehicles.-- without prejudice to the provisions of Ss 13 and 14, where any tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid within the period specified in S. 4, such officer- (i) of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of an inspector of Motor Vehicles ; or (ii) of the Police Department not below the rank of an Inspector of police, as the State Government may empower in this behalf, may subject to such rules as may be prescribed, seize and detain such vehicle and for this purpose, take or cause to be taken all steps for the safe custody of the vehicle, until the tax due in respect of the vehicle is paid. " ( 7 ) THE condition precedent for the exercise of power of seizure of a vehicle under the above provision is non-payment of tax which has become due. Now, in the present case, it is impossible for the respondents to contend that any tax had become due in respect of the vehicles, in view of the Notification issued under ss. 16 (1) and 3 (3) of the Act as the vehicles were registered in the State of Andhra pradesh and fulfilled all the conditions setout in that Notification. Therefore, there was no power on the authorities exercising power under the Taxation Act to seize the vehicles. 16 (1) and 3 (3) of the Act as the vehicles were registered in the State of Andhra pradesh and fulfilled all the conditions setout in that Notification. Therefore, there was no power on the authorities exercising power under the Taxation Act to seize the vehicles. ( 8 ) THE contention urged for the respondents however is that the special permit issued under S. 63 (6) of the Act was for a specific purpose i. e. to ply the said vehicle as a public service vehicle, for the purpose of carrying passengers under a contract and therefore if the vehicles were found to have been used for a different purpose, it "was open for the authorities not only to prosecute the. petitioners under the provisions of the Act for violation of the conditions of the permit but also to seize the vehicles under S. 11-A of the Taxation Act on the ground that the vehicles were being used as stage carriage or contract carriage in the State without payment of tax. In support of this submission, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore v. Syed Ibrahim (1) and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh high Court in the case of Y. Peda Ven- kaiah v. R. T. O. Nellore (2) and also a decision of this Court in Patel Giriyappa v. Deputy Transport Commissioner (3 ). The ratio, which emerges from the three decisions can be summarised as follows : if the vehicle in respect of which a particular type of permit has been obtained is found to have been used for a different purpose- (I) The owner of the vehicle could be prosecuted for violation of the condition of the permit, and , (ii) Such owner could also be compelled to pay the tax if the rate of tax fixed under the law for such use was higher than the tax which was paid in respect of the purpose for which the permit had been issued. ( 9 ) THERE can be no doubt that the authorities have got both powers and this position is not controverted for the petitioners also. ( 9 ) THERE can be no doubt that the authorities have got both powers and this position is not controverted for the petitioners also. Therefore, if the authori- ties had found that the two vehicles were being used as stage carriage in this State it was not only competent for the authorities to presecute the petitioners for violation of the condition of the permit under the provisions of S. 123 read with s, 60 of the Act but also to determine the extent of liability of the petitioners to pay tax to this State under the Taxation act. But the only question for consideration in these writ petitions is, that even on the basis that such two courses were open to the authorities, they could seize the vehicle or not. The wording of S. 11a of the Taxation Act is clear and un-ambi- guous. The authorities have power to seize and detain a vehicle only when in respect of any such vehicle the tax had become due under the Taxation Act. Therefore, unless the competent authority had passed an order, after recording a finding that the vehicle was being used in this State for a purpose not covered by the permit issued under S. 63 (6) of the act and therefore the tax was payable under S. 3 of the Act, the tax cannot be said to have become due and consequently there is no power to seize the vehicle. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents however submitted that S. 129-A of the Act empowers the authorities to seize the vehicle if the vehicle was used in violation of the conditions of the permit stating that such use amounts to use of the vehicle without a permit. I am unable to agree. Using a vehicle without a permit only falls under S. 129-A of the act and in such case the vehicle could be seized. Violation of conditions 'of a permit presupposes the existence of a valid permit. Therefore, if the vehicle which is required for claiming the exemption under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the date when the vehicles were seized any tax was due from the petitioners to this State in respect of the said vehicles. Violation of conditions 'of a permit presupposes the existence of a valid permit. Therefore, if the vehicle which is required for claiming the exemption under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the date when the vehicles were seized any tax was due from the petitioners to this State in respect of the said vehicles. S. 11-A of the Act, which empowers the authorities to seize and detain the vehicle, reads as follows :" 11 A. Power to seize and detain vehicles.-- without prejudice to the provisions of Ss 13 and 14, where any tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid within the period specified in S. 4, such officer- (i) of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of an inspector of Motor Vehicles ; or (ii) of the Police Department not below the rank of an Inspector of police, as the State Government may empower in this behalf, may subject to such rules as may be prescribed, seize and detain such vehicle and for this purpose, take or cause to be taken all steps for the safe custody of the vehicle, until the tax due in respect of the vehicle is paid. " ( 7 ) THE condition precedent for the exercise of power of seizure of a vehicle under the above provision is non-payment of tax which has become due. Now, in the present case, it is impossible for the respondents to contend that any tax had become due in respect of the vehicles, in view of the Notification issued under ss. 16 (1) and 3 (3) of the Act as the vehicles were registered in the State of Andhra pradesh and fulfilled all the conditions setout in that Notification. Therefore, there was no power on the authorities exercising power under the Taxation Act to seize the vehicles. ( 8 ) THE contention urged for the respondents however is that the special permit issued under S. 63 (6) of the Act was for a specific purpose i. e. to ply the said vehicle as a public service vehicle, for the purpose of carrying passengers under a contract and therefore if the vehicles were found to have been used for a different purpose, it "was open for the authorities not only to prosecute the. petitioners under the provisions of the Act for violation of the conditions of the permit but also to seize the vehicles under S. 11-A of the Taxation Act on the ground that the vehicles were being used as stage carriage or contract carriage in the State without payment of tax. In support of this submission, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore v. Syed Ibrahim (1) and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh high Court in the case of Y. Peda Ven- kaiah v. R. T. O. Nellore (2) and also a decision of this Court in Patel Giriyappa v. Deputy Transport Commissioner (3 ). The ratio, which emerges from the three decisions can be summarised as follows : if the vehicle in respect of which a particular type of permit has been obtained is found to have been used for a different purpose- (I) The owner of the vehicle could be prosecuted for violation of the condition of the permit, and , (ii) Such owner could also be compelled to pay the tax if the rate of tax fixed under the law for such use was higher than the tax which was paid in respect of the purpose for which the permit had been issued. ( 9 ) THERE can be no doubt that the authorities have got both powers and this position is not controverted for the petitioners also. Therefore, if the authori- ties had found that the two vehicles were being used as stage carriage in this State it was not only competent for the authorities to presecute the petitioners for violation of the condition of the permit under the provisions of S. 123 read with s, 60 of the Act but also to determine the extent of liability of the petitioners to pay tax to this State under the Taxation act. But the only question for consideration in these writ petitions is, that even on the basis that such two courses were open to the authorities, they could seize the vehicle or not. The wording of S. 11a of the Taxation Act is clear and un-ambi- guous. The authorities have power to seize and detain a vehicle only when in respect of any such vehicle the tax had become due under the Taxation Act. The wording of S. 11a of the Taxation Act is clear and un-ambi- guous. The authorities have power to seize and detain a vehicle only when in respect of any such vehicle the tax had become due under the Taxation Act. Therefore, unless the competent authority had passed an order, after recording a finding that the vehicle was being used in this State for a purpose not covered by the permit issued under S. 63 (6) of the act and therefore the tax was payable under S. 3 of the Act, the tax cannot be said to have become due and consequently there is no power to seize the vehicle. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents however submitted that S. 129-A of the Act empowers the authorities to seize the vehicle if the vehicle was used in violation of the conditions of the permit stating that such use amounts to use of the vehicle without a permit. I am unable to agree. Using a vehicle without a permit only falls under S. 129-A of the act and in such case the vehicle could be seized. Violation of conditions 'of a permit presupposes the existence of a valid permit. Therefore, if the vehicle is used in violation of conditions of a permit, the competent authority has to take action under S. 123 read with S. 60 of the Act for the violation specified therein or if any particular type of violation did not fall under any specific category, action could also be taken as provided in S. 112 of the act. It is not disputed that the vehicles in question were covered by a valid permit issued under S. 63 (6) of the Act and therefore S. 129-A is not attracted. ( 11 ) IN the light of the above, my conclusion on the question of law arising for consideration in this case is as follows : the vehicles in respect of which special permit has been issued under S. 63 (6) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in any other State and in respect of which tax due to that State has been paid, no liability to pay tax under the provisions of S. 11-A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, arises in view of the notification issued under S. 16 read with sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Taxation act. (3) of S. 3 of the Taxation act. Consequently, the vehicles cannot be seized in exercise of the power under s. 11-A of the Taxation Act until the determination of the liability to pay tax on the ground of actual user in this State in contravention of the conditions of the permit issued in another State. ( 12 ) BEFORE concluding, it is necessary to deal with a preliminary objection, to the maintainability of these petitions, raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. He submitted that as the petitioners have a right of appeal under S. 15 of the Taxation Act, the writ petitions should be dismissed in limine. I do not think that the objection is well founded. The vehicles have been seized without the authority of law. The seizure of the vehicles by the authorities without there being any power to do so under the provisions of the Taxation Act infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioners could have preferred an appeal, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to give expeditious relief to the petitioners. ( 13 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I make the following Orders :- (I) Rule made absolute ; (ii) It is hereby declared that the vehicles belonging to the petitioners which were covered by valid permit issued under S. 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the State of Andhra Pradesh and in respect of which the tax due to that State had been paid were not liable for seizure under S. 11-A of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. (iii) As the vehicles have already been released pursuant to an interim order made by this Court, no consequential relief to direct the respondents to release the vehicles, is called for. (iv) The security furnished by the petitioners at the time of. the release of the vehicles pursuant to the interim order shall stand discharged, (v) No costs. --- *** --- .