Judgement ORDER:- This writ petition has been filed to call for the records connected with Memo No.9337/D3/81 dt. 14-3-1981 issued by the respondent herein calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,686/- in respect of her spare bus MDT 6440 for the quarter ending 31-3-1976 and to quash the same. 2. The affidavit contained the following averments. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator plying a town bus in Trichy Town. She also owned a spare bus bearing Registration No.MDT 6440. During the year 1976 she paid the full tax in respect of the route bus and also tax at the concessional rate of 75% as applicable to her route bus in respect of her spare bus. During 17-1-1976 to 31-3-1976 the bus of another operator bearing Registration No.MDY 6873 was off the road and the petitioner was granted temporary permit in respect of her spare bus to ply as substitute service. The respondent herein accepted the tax in respect of the petitioner's spare bus amounting to Rs. 8,438/- for the quarter ending 31-3-1976 without any protest or demand for excess payment. 3. The owner of MDY 6873 did not ply his bus during the entire quarter ending 31-31976 and under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1974 obtained refund of the tax in respect of the said bus. 4. While so, the petitioner received a Memo No.9337/D3/81, dt. 14-3-1981 from the respondent herein calling upon her to pay a sum of Rs. 1,683/- being Rs. 562/- representing difference between the amount of Rs. 8,438/-paid in respect of the petitioner's spare bus and the sum of Rs. 9,000/- which represented the full tax due if the vehicle had been a regular route bus and not a spare bus and a sum of Rs. 1,124/- being penalty at 200% on the balance due. 5. The said notice of demand had been issued without any prior notice to the petitioner and without affording her an opportunity to show cause as to why the tax and penalty should not be collected from her and the demand of Rs. 1,686/- is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The demand purports to be made based on G.O.Ms. No.1904, Home, dt. 21-10-1976, which cannot be said to be the basis for this demand. 1,686/- is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The demand purports to be made based on G.O.Ms. No.1904, Home, dt. 21-10-1976, which cannot be said to be the basis for this demand. The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act 1974 makes a specific provision that the tax due in respect of a spare bus shall be 75% of the maximum tax payable in respect of any of the regular route buses of the operator subject to the condition that the full tax in respect of all the regular stage carriages should have been paid. The petitioner had paid the tax due in respect of the regular route bus in time. The objection that has been raised by the Senior Accounts Officer, Madras is that the other operator in whose place the petitioner plied her spare bus had obtained refund of the tax paid in respect of his bus. The basis of the concession shown to the spare buses is that the operator has no certainty of utilising the same during the entirety of a quarter. In the instant case the petitioner had plied her spare bus only during 17-1-1976 to 31-3-1976 or in other words 16 days less than the full quarter and consequently demanding tax to be paid at the full rate is totally without jurisdiction. Therefore it is submitted that a writ of certiorari may be issued calling for records connected with Memo No.9337/D3/81, dt. 14-3-81 issued by the respondent to the petitioner demanding the payment of Rs. 1,686/- in respect of her spare bus MDT 6440 for the quarter ending 31-3-1976 and the same may be quashed. 6. On behalf of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirapalli, the respondent herein, Mr. P. Samuel, learned Government Advocate submits that the order dt. 14-3-1981 passed by the respondent in his Memo No.9337/ D3/81 is correct and in accordance with law and is not liable to be quashed as prayed for by the petitioner herein. 7. The point for consideration is whether the relief prayed for by the petitioner herein can be granted or not. 7A. It is seen from the order dt. 14-3-1981 in Memo No.9337/D3/81 that the respondent herein had taken all the aspects of the case and had come to a correct decision. 7. The point for consideration is whether the relief prayed for by the petitioner herein can be granted or not. 7A. It is seen from the order dt. 14-3-1981 in Memo No.9337/D3/81 that the respondent herein had taken all the aspects of the case and had come to a correct decision. A temporary permit in respect of the spare bus MDT 6440 belonging to Smt. Rasheetha Begum, Tiruchy, the petitioner herein to ply in place of MDY 6873 as substitute service was granted for the period 17-1-1976 to 31-3-1976. 8. The Senior Accounts Officer, Madras during his course of audit pointed out that tax in respect of the spare bus MDT 6440 has to be paid at full rate for the quarter ending 31-3-1976. As this substitute service involves refund of tax to the route bus MDY 6873, as per G.O.Ms. No.1904, Home, dt. 21-10-1976 full tax amounting to Rs. 9,000/- is due to be collected in respect of the spare bus MDT 6440. The permit-holder has remitted a sum of Rs. 8,438/- for the quarter ending 31-3-1976. The balance of Rs. 562/- along with penalty of Rs. 1,124/- has to be collected. Hence Rasheetha Begum, Prop. Deepak Transport, Tiruchy was directed to send the draft for Rs. 1,686/- being the balance of tax due for the quarter ending 31-3-1976 within 7 days of receipt of this Memo." 9. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the Memo issued by the respondent. There is no merit in this writ petition. Hence it is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.