JUDGMENT Banerji, J. - In this writ petition the Petitioners Mohd. Shafiq and Khursheed Ahmad have challenged the order dated the 30th Oct. 1985 passed by the Taxation Officer of Motor Vehicle Department, Agra rejecting the application of the Petitioners under S. 35 of the M.V. Act, 1939. 2. The Petitioners have come to this Court stating that they own a truck bearing registration No. UPU 2318 that they paid the tax under the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1935 till Dec. 1984. The petitioners had, however, not plied their vehicle from 5-12-1984 due to a mechanical breakdown and the vehicle remained idle for repairs. The petitioners thereafter applied on 16-8-85 for paying the road tax. The Taxation Officer was of the view that the petitioners had not complied with the provisions of R. 33 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1935, and had not surrendered the relevant papers and, therefore, they were liable to pay the tax from 1st Jan. 1985. The petitioners' case was that they were not liable to pay the tax. By a supplementary affidavit the petitioners have taken the further plea that the Petitioners have sought exemption of the tax and although the impugned order was passed purporting to be under R. 35, yet there was no application of mind and in any event the amount of arrears claimed by the Taxation Officer being more than Rs. 3,000/- the matter could not be decided by him and had to be referred to the Transport Commissioner or the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Administration) for orders. On these grounds they have sought the quashing of the order (Annexure 1 to the Petition) passed by the Taxation Officer and have also prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondent to realise the road tax from 16th Sept. 4, 1985 onwards. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. We are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of finally at the admission stage vide Chap. XXII R. 2 of the Rules of the Court. 4. Even if the petitioner's vehicle was not used and was lying idle from the 5th Dec. 1984 it was open to the petitioners to proceed under the provisions of R. 33 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). XXII R. 2 of the Rules of the Court. 4. Even if the petitioner's vehicle was not used and was lying idle from the 5th Dec. 1984 it was open to the petitioners to proceed under the provisions of R. 33 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). This rule contemplates that when an owner of a motor vehicle withdraws his motor vehicle from use for a period exceeding three months, he has to surrender the registration certificate and the token issued to the Taxation Officer, together with a declaration in Part I of Form F. In such an event the Taxation Officer has to complete Part II of Form F and return it to the claimant and also enter the fact in the registration certificate of the date of surrender. The effect of this is that from the date of surrender, if the period exceeds three months, the owner of the vehicle is not liable to pay the road tax as contemplated under the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1935. There is another provision viz, R. 35 in which case the Taxation Officer has been given the power to exempt the owner of a motor vehicle from payment of arrears of tax and writ off the amount of such arrears up to a maximum of Rs. 3000/- under intimation to the Transport Commissioner. If the amount of arrears exceeds Rs. 3000/-, the Taxation Officer has to refer the matter to the Transport Commissioner or the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Administration) for orders. It is, therefore, clear that apart from the procedure envisaged under R. 33 a party can also seek exemption from payment of tax under R. 35 to the Taxation Officer. If the tax due is up to Rs. 3000/-, it is within the competence of the Taxation Officer to allow the exemption. The Taxation Officer has, however, to apply his mind, make enquiries and satisfy himself that the motor vehicle had not been in use in Uttar Pradesh for a continuous period of not less than three months since the tax or instalment of the tax was last paid. 5. In the present case the tax was paid up to 31st Dec. 1984. Thereafter the tax was not paid. The petitioners made an attempt to pay the current tax in Sept. 1985. 5. In the present case the tax was paid up to 31st Dec. 1984. Thereafter the tax was not paid. The petitioners made an attempt to pay the current tax in Sept. 1985. However, the Regional Transport Officer had asked them to pay the tax due from Ist of Jan. 1985 to 16-9-1985. This amount is said to be more than Rs. 3000/-. If it is a fact that the arrears of tax was more than Rs. 3000/- the Taxation Officer was not competent to adjudicate on the matter and had to refer the matter to the Transport Commissioner or the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Administration) for orders. In the present case the Taxation Officer had proceeded to dispose of the matter himself. If the sum due was more than Rs. 3000/-, then the Taxation Officer, in our opinion, had no jurisdiction to pass any order. 6. It may further be mentioned that the impugned order passed by the Taxation Officer was challenged on the ground that it does not show that he had applied his mind to the affidavit filed before him stating that the motor vehicle was not in use nor had been found in use, nor challenged during the period for which the exemption was sought. It is apparent from the impugned order that all these matters have not been touched even in that order. The provisions of R. 35 have not been considered even by the Taxation Officer, and as such his order is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and the case has to be sent back to the Taxation Officer for considering the provisions of R. 35 and passing appropriate orders. If need be the case may be referred to the Transport Commissioner or the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Administration) for orders. Since the matter may take some time we are of the view that the petitioners may be allowed to deposit the road tax for the period 16th Sept. 1985, onwards till the decision by the Taxation Officer or by the Transport Commissioner or the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Administration) as the case may be on their application for exemption under R. 35. 7. We, therefore, allow this petition, quash the order dated the 30th Oct. 1985 and send back the matter to the Taxation Officer for passing appropriate orders. 1985, onwards till the decision by the Taxation Officer or by the Transport Commissioner or the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Administration) as the case may be on their application for exemption under R. 35. 7. We, therefore, allow this petition, quash the order dated the 30th Oct. 1985 and send back the matter to the Taxation Officer for passing appropriate orders. If the tax due between 1-1-1985 to the date of making the application is more than Rs. 3000/-, then he may refer the matter for orders to the Transport Commissioner or the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Administration). We further direct that the petitioners may be permitted to deposit the tax with effect from 16-9-1985 until the disposal of the matter by the Taxation Officer, Agra and further that the deposit of the above tax will be subject to orders as may be passed under R. 35 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1935. There will be no order as to costs. 8. A copy of the order may be given to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges within three days.