RAJASHEKHARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE motor vehicle registered in Kerala bearing registration No. Kln 6399 was plying from Bombay to cannanore on its return journey on 24-9-1981. When the vehicle was checked by the motor vehicle inspector at baindur check-post near udupi. The said vehicle had a special permit issued by the secretary, r. t. a. , cannanore valid from 18-9-1981 to 27-9-1981 and was authorised to carry 33 persons from cannanore to Bombay and back. ( 2 ) IT appears that when the vehicle was checked, there were only 17 persons found travelling in the bus from Bombay to cannanore as against 33 persons permitted to be carried under the special permit. A check report was issued and in order to avoid seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 4,200/- under protest and continued the onward journey. The notice as per Annexure-A was issued on 29-9-1981 demanding compounding fee of Rs. 6,300/- for the belated payment of tax. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said notice and the deputy commissioner for transport by his order dated 19-1-1984, dismissed the appeal. In this writ petition, the notice issued by the regional transport officer (Annexure-A) and the order of the deputy commissioner for transport (Annexure-B) are challenged. ( 3 ) THE only ground on which the deputy commissioner confirmed the levy of tax was that different persons were found travelling at the time of check than these covered under the special permit. The other reasons given for confirming the demand are not relevant. ( 4 ) THE question that arises for decision is, whether the authorities of the Karnataka state, in exercise of their power under Section 11-a of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act can levy tax for violation of the conditions of the special permit as stated by the deputy ] commissioner for transport in his order. It is argued by Shri Ananda Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle had a valid permit issued under Section 63 (6) of the motor vehicles act and the vehicles covered by special permit are exempt from payment of tax by virtue of a notification dated 15-5-1958, issued by the government in exercise of its power conferred by Section 16 (1) read with 3 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. It is also argued that the tax due to the Kerala state was paid and special permit had been obtained under Section 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act and there was no violation of the conditions and the Provisions of Section 3 (1), read with part-b of the schedule are not attracted to a vehicle which has a valid special permit. It is also argued that the authorities of the Karnataka state cannot seize the vehicle and also levy tax under the act for any violation of the conditions of the permit. The violation for which the vehicle was seized and the tax of Rs. 4,200/- was levied was that, the persons travelling at the time of check were different from the list of persons- authorised to travel. It is argued by the learned counsel that any such violation of the conditions of the permit is a matter on which the transport authority which granted permit has to take notice of any such violation and take appropriate action under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under Section 60, the transport authority issuing the permit may cancel the permit or suspend it for breach of any of the conditions referred to in Section 60. Where a permit is liable to be cancelled or suspended under sub-section (1) of Section 60, the transport authority, if it is satisfied that there has been violation of any of the conditions, it may compound the offence by permitting the holder of the permit to pay certain sum of money as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 60. It is also pointed out that the authority issuing the permit may take action to punish the permit holder under Section 123 of Motor Vehicles Act. ( 5 ) MR. Ananda shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, also referred to two division bench decisions of this court, the earliest being D. Vengiah Setty v The Transport Commissioner in Mysore and another (writ petition No. 2432 of 1966 disposed of on 7th july, 1969) and the other in K. Masthan Sahib and another v The Deputy Commissioner Of Transports and another, (writ petition nos. 21905 and 24676 of 1981 disposed of on 18th august, 1986 ). He also relied upon the decision in Kumarappa v Commissioner For Transport and another, (1974 (1) kar. L. j. 105 ). 21905 and 24676 of 1981 disposed of on 18th august, 1986 ). He also relied upon the decision in Kumarappa v Commissioner For Transport and another, (1974 (1) kar. L. j. 105 ). It is argued by Shri Ananda Shetty, placing reliance on the above decisions, that it has been the consistent view of this court that for any violation of the conditions of the permit issued by the authority of another state, the authorities of this state cannot levy tax on the permit holder holding that the exemption available to the permit holder is deemed to have been withdrawn. This court has also held that breach of any of the conditions of the permit has to be dealt with under the appropriate law and not by withdraw" ing the exemption provided by the notification issued by the state government. The appropriate authority referred to by this court is the authority issuing the permit. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice, two decisions of this court in RA. Jayaram v State of Mysore, (1974 (1) kar. L. j. 158) and in rajashekhar K. T. v State of Karnataka and another, (1982 (1) kar. L. j. 15) in which insistence of furnishing a list of passengers under sub-rules (5) and (7) of Rule 111 was declared void. However, this is not the question that arises in this case since it is not the Rule under which the Kerala permit was issued and therefore either application of the said Rule or application of the two decisions referred to above does not arise. ( 7 ) THE writ petition is resisted on behalf of the respondents on the ground that for any violation of the conditions of the special permit, the authorities acting under the powers vested under the Karnataka motor vehicles taxation act can seize the vehicle and demand tax under Section 3 (2), part-b i. e. , with reference to special permit. Shri H. L. Dattu, learned high court government pleader, has drawn sustenance from the decisions of this court in Syed Rafiq Ahmed and another v regional transport officer and others, (1984 (1) kar. Lj. 281) and Masthan Sahib v R. T. O. , Bangalore, (1981 (1) kar. Lj. 99) and also tried to distinguish the decision in d. Vengiah setty's case. Lj. 281) and Masthan Sahib v R. T. O. , Bangalore, (1981 (1) kar. Lj. 99) and also tried to distinguish the decision in d. Vengiah setty's case. In masthan sahib's case, this court held that as long as the vehicle was covered by a valid permit issued under Section 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act and in respect of which tax had been paid to the state issuing the permit, the authorities acting under Section 11-a of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act cannot sci/c such vehicles. In the said case it was found that the vehicle which was covered by a special permit was found being used as a stage-carriage in this state and therefore the vehicle was seized by the inspector of motor vehicles in purported exercise of the power under Section 11-a. The writ petition was therefore allowed and the vehicle was directed to be released. The only observation that is sought to be relied upon by Shri Datlu is in paragraph-9 of the order wherein it is stated that it is not only competent for the authorities to prosecute for violation of the conditions of the permit under the Provisions of Section 123 read with Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also to determine the extent of liability of the petitioners to pay the tax to this state under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. This observation was made in the context of the further observation made by his lordship that any demand to pay the tax payable under the karnalaka act should be preceded by an order of the competent authority and by recording a finding as to the use of the vehicle or stage-carriage and the liability to pay the tax that follows as a consequence. Therefore, this observation made in the context of the facts of the said case docs not help the respondents. ( 8 ) IN syed rafiq ahmed's case also a special permit was issued under Section 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the vehicle had been seized for recovery of arrears of tax. This court held that any recovery of arrears of tax due in respect of a vehicle should be done in the manner provided by the Act, i. e. , by issuing a notice and making an order determining the tax, after giving an opportunity to the owner of being heard. This court held that any recovery of arrears of tax due in respect of a vehicle should be done in the manner provided by the Act, i. e. , by issuing a notice and making an order determining the tax, after giving an opportunity to the owner of being heard. It was also held by puttaswamy, j. , that the authorities of this state cannot exercise their power under Section 11-a to seize the vehicle without quantifying the tax as stated above. The vehicles had been seized in those cases by virtue of the withdrawal of the exemption in respect of all India tourist permits and payment of advance tax for the default of which the seizure had been effected. Therefore, none of the two decisions relied upon by the learned government pleader has any bearing on the present case. ( 9 ) SINCE the vehicle was covered by a valid special permit issued by the r. t. a. , cannanore and the entry of the vehicle was on the strength of the special permit, the notification of the government exempting tax in respect of such permits was attracted to the facts of the present case also. Only in cases where the vehicle is used for different purpose in this state without payment of tax and not covered by valid permit that the Provisions of the Karnataka Act get attracted. It is not the case of the department that there was any mis-user of the vehicle within the state contrary to the authorised use which was permitted under the special permit. Therefore, the variance of passengers found at the time of check with the list of persons authorised to travel, cannot be treated as a violation or as an unauthorised entry attracting the levy of tax under Section 3 (2) of the act. Having regard to the exemption extended by the state government to vehicles plying on special permits issued under Section 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, such vehicles cannot be seized by the state authorities lor any violation of the conditions of the permit such as the one for which the vehicle was siczed in the present case. Having regard to the exemption extended by the state government to vehicles plying on special permits issued under Section 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, such vehicles cannot be seized by the state authorities lor any violation of the conditions of the permit such as the one for which the vehicle was siczed in the present case. As long as the tax due in respect of a vehicle has already been paid to the state which issued the special permit and the entry is authorised, the vehicle cannot be seized by the state authorities of this state. As already pointed out, it is the authority issuing the special permit that can lake cognizance of any violations of the conditions of such permit and take action as provided under Section 60 of the motor vehicle act. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, the recovery of collection of tax of Rs. 4,200/- by the first respondent was without the authority of law. The writ petition is allowed and Rule made absolute. The first respondent is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 4,200/- within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Shri H. L. Dattu, high court government pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance in two weeks. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .