K. J. SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE background facts giving rise to this writ petition can be stated briefly :-"nagaraj-THE petitioner-is the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. APC 4699. It was not covered by any permit. He intimated the non-use of the vehicle for the period from November 1, 1977 to december 31, 1978 while surrendering the relevant documents. But on June 2, 1978 the vehicle was found plying with full complement when it was stopped by a motor Vehicles Inspector. The petitioner and his driver were prosecut d for plying the vehicle without a permit and without paying the tax. The learned Magistrate convicted them on both the counts and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 4,290 being the tax payable in respect of that vehicle for the relevant quarter. The petitioner then thought that since he had paid the tax by way of fine, he could as well operate the vehicle in that quarter. Perhaps he never knew that he, could not operate the vehicle without a permit. On July 19, 1978 when the vehicle was found plying with 33 passengers, the flying Squad, Central Range, Bangalore seized it and intimated the seizure to the regional Transport Officer ("rto" ). ( 2 ) ON 16th November, 1979, the RTO issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to pay tax in respect of the vehicle for the period from the November 1, 1977 to january 31, 1979. The reason for that demand was that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions upon which the non-use of the vehicle was intimated to the RTO. He was called upon to pay in all Rs. 21,450 as tax due for the said period. ( 3 ) THE petitioner appealed against the said demand notice. But the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal. It was held that the petitioner was liable to pay the tax for operating the vehicle contrary to the conditions of the intimation of its non-use. The petitioner has now moved this Court for relief under Art. 227 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) THE intimation of non use of a vehicle is required to be given as per the government notification dated 9/13 3-1959 issued under S. 16 of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 ("the Act" ). The petitioner has now moved this Court for relief under Art. 227 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) THE intimation of non use of a vehicle is required to be given as per the government notification dated 9/13 3-1959 issued under S. 16 of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 ("the Act" ). The notification provides that the intimation shall be in the * prescribed form with the surrender of registration Certificate, tax token and permit of the vehicle. It is also necessary to intimate the place where the vehicle would be kept during the period for which the tax exemption is claimed. If the intimation is accepted by the RTO, then there would be no liability to pay the tax for the period of its non use. The vehicle shall be kept at the place notified to the RTO. It cannot be removed to any other place without the prior permission of the RTO. If it is removed without prior permission, then the liability to pay the tax will be attracted. That has been expressly provided by the following clause substituted by notification No. HD 140 TMT 68 dated December 30, 1968 :"the exemption shall not be applicable if the vehicle is removed from the garage mentioned in the form referred to in condition No. 1 without the prior permission of the Regional Transport officer". In the instant case, the vehicle was removed without the prior permission of the rto from the place where it was parked. It was also used on the roads. The condition prescribed by the notification was thus not complied with in order to earn the exemption The petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to the exemption for the period for which he has intimated, the non-use. The appellate authority was justified in holding so and rejecting the claim of the petitioner. ( 5 ) NOW comes the question relating to the correctness of the amount of tax determined by the RTO. It was urged that the petitioner has paid the tax for one quarter by way of sentence of fine awarded in CC no. 22/1978 on the file of the Judicial magistrate, Malavalli and he could not be held liable to pay the tax again for that quarter. There is, I think, considerable force in this submission. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay the fine under s. 12 of the Act. 22/1978 on the file of the Judicial magistrate, Malavalli and he could not be held liable to pay the tax again for that quarter. There is, I think, considerable force in this submission. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay the fine under s. 12 of the Act. S. 12 provides :12. Penalties:- (1) Whoever- (a) as a registered owner or otherwise has possession or control of any motor vehicle liable to tax under this Act without having paid the amount of the tax or additional tax due in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of such vehicle, or, (b) delivers a declaration or additional declaration wherein the particulars required by or under this Act to be therein set forth are not fully and truly stated, shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to the quarterly tax payable in respect of such vehicle and which may extend to a sum equal to the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle ". Under this section, the defaulter is liable to be convicted and sentenced to pay fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to the quarterly tax payable in respect of such vehicle and it may extend to a sum equal to the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle. The sentence prescribed is in terms of the tax payable in respect of the vehicle. The sentence is thus limited to the statutory requirement, that is, on the sum equal to the quarterly tax up to the sum equal to the annual tax payable. That is, in my opinion, nothing but a mode of collection of the tax from the person liable to tax under the Act. Since the petitioner has paid the said fine representing the tax payable for one quarter, the Tax Officer ought to have given set off for that amount while determining the tax payable by the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed in part, with a direction to the tax Officer to modify the demand notice by giving a deduction of Rs 4,290 and to recover the balance. No costs. --- *** --- .