M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The petitioner is operating an iron ore mine at Hospet, Bellary District, Karnataka State. The extent of the mining lease area, it is alleged, is 819 acres. In order to carry on the mining operations, the petitioner-Company uses excavating machinery and to shift the soil, they use dumpers of various types generally called earth moving equipment. These dumpers, it is alleged are mechanically propelled contrivances which take in the over burden in a specially designed funnel like receptacle and are capable of discharging the same at a given point within the mining area. They are said to be either six wheeled or 10 wheeled vehicles with a cabin for operation by one man and tipping gear of 20 to 30 tonnes capacity. It is alleged further that these dumpers of various types are used exclusively within the mining area of the petitioner-company at Hospet. In fact, the assertion is that the said dumpers are not tused on the public roads. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice issued by the Assistant regional Transport Officer, Hospet, demanding payment of Motor Vehicles tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of motor vehicles bearing Registration Nos. MYY. 5303, 5304,5490, 4667 and 4726. It is also prayed by the petitioner that this court should issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to refund taxes already levied and collected illegally by them in respect of their earth moving equipment which are exclusively used within the mining area of the petitioner-company. ( 3 ) IN spite of several opportunities given, the State has not filed any statement of objections. However, Sri venkatachaliah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has produced the records of the case before the court. ( 4 ) THE matter in dispute as to whether the motor vehicles used by the petitioner-Company exclusively within its mining area at Hospet are liable to taxation under the Act or not has been the subject matter of more than one writ petition. It was held by this court that these vehicles were liable to pay taxes. ( 4 ) THE matter in dispute as to whether the motor vehicles used by the petitioner-Company exclusively within its mining area at Hospet are liable to taxation under the Act or not has been the subject matter of more than one writ petition. It was held by this court that these vehicles were liable to pay taxes. But on appeal by the petitioner-Company, it was disposed of along with other appeals from other parts of the country, mostly from orissa in Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of orissa (1 ). There, the petitioner succeeded. In the said case the Supreme court ruled that motor vehicles including dumpers and the like were liable to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, but not liable to pay tax under the Taxation Act of the relevant States. It is on account of this ruling that the petitioner claims refund of taxes already paid and for quashing of the demand notice issued now in respect of other vehicles, contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court and the, law declared by it. ( 5 ) IT is useful to mention that in WP no. 8989/ 1977 the petitioner-Company lad approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to refund the taxes in respect of which they. had made the necessary applications for refund. It was them contended that no application for refund as such was made and therefore a writ of mandamus was not available to the petitioner. But it was discovered from the records that applications were actually pending disposal by the concerned authority without considering the claim on merits. In that circumstance, this court having stated the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bolani Ores case (1), directed the concerned Regional transport Officer, Bellary, to consider the applications and dispose of them in accordance with law. ( 6 ) NOTHING seems to have been done despite the time limit of three months imposed for such disposal. The petitioner was driven to commence con tempt proceedings. It is only thereafter the present petition has been filed making the dual prayers for quashing the demand notice at annexure-K as well, as for a writ of mandamus directing refund of taxes in respect of vehicles already taxed. The petitioner was driven to commence con tempt proceedings. It is only thereafter the present petition has been filed making the dual prayers for quashing the demand notice at annexure-K as well, as for a writ of mandamus directing refund of taxes in respect of vehicles already taxed. ( 7 ) SRI Venkatachaliah, learned Government Pleader, fairly concedes that taxes have since been refunded in respect of some vehicles. But he has not been able to give reasons why if taxes have been refunded in respect of some vehicles, taxes have been demanded in respect of other similar vehicles. He has stated that the vehicles in question have been registered as heavy motor vehicles and therefore the tax is liable to be paid. ( 8 ) 'motor Vehicle' has the same meaning under the Motor Vehicles taxation Act as it has under the Indian motor Vehicles Act. This was examined in Bolani Ores case (1) by the Supreme Court in depth. The charging section under the Taxation Act is attracted only when the vehicles are used on public roads and if they are used exclusively within the premises of the owner, they do not attract the. tax under the Taxation Act. In that view of the matter, it is immaterial whether the vehicles in question are registered as heavy motor vehicles or light motor vehicles. So long as they are not used on public roads in the state of Karnataka, they do not attract the charging section under the Taxation Act. ( 9 ) IT was next contended by Sri Venkatachaliah that as per notification issued by the Government bearing No. HD 128 IMI 74 dated 8-6-1980 the exemption given in exercise, of the powers conferred by S. 16 of the Taxation Act is relatable only to dumpers, rockers, shovels but not to heavy motor vehicles and therefore the vehicles in question which are registered as heavy motor vehicles are liable to pay tax. I have already answered this argument earlier by stating that liability accrues, when the vehicles whether they be dumpers, rockers or shovels or plain motor vehicles only if they are used on the public roads in the state and not otherwise. I have already answered this argument earlier by stating that liability accrues, when the vehicles whether they be dumpers, rockers or shovels or plain motor vehicles only if they are used on the public roads in the state and not otherwise. When the supreme Court has declared that certain motor vehicles are not liable to pay tax, if they are not, used on public roads, it appears to be strange, that the government should exempt the same class of vehicles. Power under S. 16 of the Act is to create exemptions from tax liability and not to explain the decisions of courts. Therefore, the power exercised by the 1st respondent in issuing the aforesaid notification has been an empty formality. It merely reiterates what owners of vehicles of the description given in the notification are already entitled to in law. ( 10 ) IN this view of the matter, the contention advanced by the respondents is liable to be rejected. It is only on proof of use on roads that the vehicles in question can be subjected to tax. Since it is not disputed that these vehicles are. used within the mining areas of the petitioner, the demand notice at Annexure-K is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and it is so quashed. ( 11 ) IN respect of the general prayer for refund, I am unable to issue any specific direction as no details have been furnished by the petitioner in regard to the claim of refund Therefore, it is appropriate to once again direct the respondents to dispose of the applications said to have been made by the petitioner in the prescribed form for such refund, within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute. But, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .