M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of a Tractor-Trailer bearing No. MYN. 3987 and 3988 respectively. He was paying Motor vehicles tax under the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at one third the prescribed rate of tax. The Tractor-Trailer was used for agricultural operations. The remaining two-thirds was a concession given to the agriculturists. However, the government to Karnataka by its notification dated 23-12-1977, among other things totally exempted Tractors and Trailers used for agricultural purposes. However the petitioner in ignorance of the notification continued to pay tax on the Tractor and Trailer till he realised that the same was exempted under the said notification no. HD 47 TMT. 75 dated 23-12-1977. Tn the meanwh'ile, there was a demand for tax amounting to Rs. 580 for the period between 1-6-1977 and 30-11-1977. Aggrieved by the demand, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Deputy commissioner for Transport, Mysore division, Mysore, under the provisions of the Act. That appeal came to be dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner had paid tax soon after the registration of the vehicle upto 30-5-1977, in spite of the contention of the petitioner that the tax should not be levied on his Tractor and Trailer, as the same was being used for agricultural operations. It is strange to notice that the 2nd respondent -Deputy Transport Commissioner has observed as follows :-"on mere such assertion it is too much to expect the issue to be adjudicated. Besides the appellant has acquiesced to the orders endorsed in the registration certificate of the vehicle which shows the rate of taxes and in these circumstances there is no valid reason to interfere with the orders of the respondent in demanding the taxes for the period and in the result the appeal stands dismissed. " ( 2 ) THEREAFTER he wrote a letter on 9-l-1978 to the Regional Transport Officer 1st respondent herein claiming exemption from payment of tax. Being ignorant, he had paid one third of the tax on the advice of the RTO. He enclosed r. C. Book for recording exemption certificate. " ( 2 ) THEREAFTER he wrote a letter on 9-l-1978 to the Regional Transport Officer 1st respondent herein claiming exemption from payment of tax. Being ignorant, he had paid one third of the tax on the advice of the RTO. He enclosed r. C. Book for recording exemption certificate. That was rejected by the regional Transport Officer on the ground that the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Mysore Division, mysore, had in appeal TAX No. 39/1977-78 dismissed the petitioner's claim for exemption from payment of tax anci therefore he pressed his demand for payment of tax from 1-6-1977 to 31-8-1978 in the sum of Rs. 4360. Aggrieved by the 2nd demand notice which is produced at Ex. C to the petition, the petitioner filed yet another appeal to the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner for Transport. That appeal came to be dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner had not made out any new ground which had not been urged in the earlier appeal. In the result, the petitioner has helplessly come to this Court for redress inter alia contending that he was not bound to pay tax on the vehicle. ( 3 ) THIS writ petition has to be allowed. That anybody advised him to pay one third tax appears to have been an act of gross injustice. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 16 of the Act is clear as crystal that all motor vehicles designed and used solely for carrying out agricultural operations are liable to get total exemption from taxation under the Act. All that a person is required owning a Tractor and a Trailer to get the exemption is to demonstrate to the registering authority that it is required for the purpose of carrying out the agricultural operations only and Rules under the Act have been made for issuing certain endorsement which would entitle such Tractor and trailer for exemption. ( 4 ) EQUALLY stange is the attitute of the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, mysore Division, Mysore, to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to claim exemption because he had acquiesced in the payment of tax not with standing the fact of the notification of the Government dated 23-12-1977. If this is the approtch made by the responsible officers entrusted with quasi-judicial function, woe be to the persons who may move them for redress within the frame work of the statute. If this is the approtch made by the responsible officers entrusted with quasi-judicial function, woe be to the persons who may move them for redress within the frame work of the statute. In my opinion the notification issued by the Government in so far as it relates to Tractors and Trailers was superfluous as sub-sec (3) itself by operation of the statute creates an exemption in favour of all motor vehicles designed and used for carrying out agricultural operations. Agricultural operations are defined in the Rules. Art. 265 of the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that no tax can be imposed without the authority of law. It is prima facie evident from the assertion made by the petitioner that he reg'stered his Tractor and Trailer and was advised to pay one third of the tax as it was being used for agricultural operations This assertion has not been denied by the respondents. Therefore, from the very inception the Tractor was entitled to be exempted from payment of tax and out of ignorance the petitioner has obtained exemption only in respect of two thirds of the tux. The fact that the petitioner was using the Tractor and Trailer for agricultural operations, was not disputed by the respondents It must necessarily be held that the tax imposed on those vehicles was without the authority of law having regard to sub-sec. (3) of S. 16 of the Act and also the notification of the government dated 23-12-1977. ( 5 ) IT is useful to recall that in a case arising out of Orissa Motor Taxation act, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd v. State of Orissa ( AIR 1975 SC 17 ) the Motor Vehicles taxation Acts of all the States including the State of Karnataka and held that Trailer was not a motor vehicle within that expression as defined under the indian Motor Vehicles Act. Thus it is seen th;st from the very inception apart from S. 16 (3) of the Act exempting raotoi vehicles designed and used for agricultural operations, the Trailer was never to be subjected to tax under the Motor vehicles Taxation Act as it was not a motor vehicle. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons the petitioner succeeds. The demand notice impugned at Ex. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons the petitioner succeeds. The demand notice impugned at Ex. E is hereby quashed as also the order made in appeal in respect of that demand notice by the 2nd respondent -Deputy Commissioner for Transport. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to observe that the petitioner has approached this court on 2-4-1979 within three years from the date of the first demand notice served on him in 1977. The tax paid by him on his vehicle has beep collected without the authority of law and is liable to be refunded even if it was paid by mistake. If the petitioner makes an application to the 1st respondent to refund the tax paid by him, the 1st respondent shall give sympathetic consideration and dispose of such application in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee is rs. 250. 00. --- *** --- .