K. C. JAGADEB ROY, J. ( 1 ) ).- In this writ application the petioner has challenged the demand of motor vehicle tax as per Annexure-I made by the regional Transport Officer by his letter dated 6-3-1990 and also the orders of the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Koraput opp. party No. 2 as well as the order of the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State transport Authority, Orissa-opp. party No. I who had affirmed the said demand but waved the penalty imposed on the petitioner. In the impugned demand letter Annexure-1 the petitioner was asked to deposit the tax with penalty for the period from 1-4-1988 till the date of the letter. ( 2 ) THE short facts leading to filing the present writ application are as follows : the petitioner is a Cc -operative Society duly registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 having its business at Umer kote in the district of Karaput. The vehicle in question which is a truck bearing registration No. ORK 6559 had been duly registered by opp. party No, 3, the Regional transport Offlcer-cum-Taxing Authority, Koraputand was owned by the petitioner-society. The case of. the petitioner is that after more then 10 years of operation of the vehicle on road, it was badly damaged and lost its road-worthiness by 1987. A sum of rs. 25,000 was the estimated expenditure which was required for making the vehicle road-worthy and since the money could not be radily available, the vehicle was lying in the campus of the petitioner since the date it was made off-road and according to the petitioner, it was lying till the date of filing of this writ application. ( 3 ) THE tax for the vehicle was paid for the period from 30-9-1986 to 30-9-1987 and an application in the prescribed Form-H was made for making the vehicle off-road and the off-road permission was allowed for the period from 1-10-1987 to 30-7-1988 and it is the case of the petitioner that along with the Form-H, the fitness certificate and Registration Book in respect of the vehicle were also surrendered fo the Regional Transport Officer-opp. party No. 3. According to the petitioner, the vehicle is still lying and has not been taken out on road for b-ing used, but an application was made on 20-1-1990 to the Regional Transport Officer, Koraput opp. party No. 3. According to the petitioner, the vehicle is still lying and has not been taken out on road for b-ing used, but an application was made on 20-1-1990 to the Regional Transport Officer, Koraput opp. party No. 3 to allow the prayer of the petitioner to make the vehicle off-road from 1-10-1988 to 30-10-1991, Opp. party No. 3 however, by his order dated 25-1-1990 rejected the said application being a belated one and required the applicant to pay the tax for which there was no prior intimation and intimated that further extension to make the vehicle off-road would not be accepted unless the petitioner paid the tax for the period for which there was no prior intimation. By Annexure-1 the petitioner was informed by the Regional transport Officer that the off-road declaration for the period from 1-4-1988 to 28-2-1991 could not be accepted as the same was belated one and the petitioner was required to deposit the road tax with penalty from 1-4-1988 till the date i. e. 6-3-1990. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the opp. party No. 2 which was disposed of by him on 31-1. 1991 as per Annexure-2 dismissing the said appeal and up-holding the order of opp. party No, 3 directing payment of lax and penalty as per rules. Against this, the petitioner had carried a revision before the opp. party No. 1 which was disposed of by him on 3-6-1991 partly allowing the said revision and holding that the petitioner was liable ro pay full road-tax and waved the penalty imposed on the petitioner. ( 4 ) MR. B. P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on two Bench decisions of this Court. The case of Prafulla Kumar painaik v. Regional Transport Authority Koraput and others, 68 (1989) CLT 136, has no application to the facts, of the present case. That case deals with sections 3 and 3-A of the Moto: Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 It is not disputed that tax is leviable or every motor vehicle used or kept for use within the State. Under the explanation to Section 3, an owner who keeps a transport vehicle for which the certificate of fitness and the certificate of registration are valid, or an owner who keeps any other vehicle, of which the certificate of registration is valid, shall be presumed to have kept such vehicle for use. Under the explanation to Section 3, an owner who keeps a transport vehicle for which the certificate of fitness and the certificate of registration are valid, or an owner who keeps any other vehicle, of which the certificate of registration is valid, shall be presumed to have kept such vehicle for use. In the facts of that case it was found that the vehicle did not have the fitness certificate during the period from 1st December, 1987 to 15th July, 1988 and since without a fitness certificate a vehicle could not have been validly registered, the Court held in that case that the vehicle could not be presumed to have been kept for being used during that period so as to attract levy of tax. In the present case it is not the case of the petitioner that during the material period for which tax was demanded there being no valid application for making the vehicle off-road, the vehicle did not have fitness certificate and the vehicle was not validly registered. Therefore, there could be no presumption that the vehicle was kept for being used on the road. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the fitness certificate and the registration certificate were surrendered to the opp. party no. 3 from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that there was the fitness certificate and a valid registration certificate of the vehicle on the date of surrender. ( 5 ) COMING to the second case of Rajkishore Rout v. Regional Transport officer-cum-Taxing Authority, Balasore and others, 72 (1991) CLT 832, it is found that this case is very much distinguishable with the facts of the present case. In that case this Court found that under the terms of contract, the financier had seized the vehicle in question and taken the vehicle to an unknown place since the owner of the vehicle defaulted in terms of his payment to the financier. The owner of the vehicle accordingly intimated to the Regional Transport Authority to make the vehicle off-road from the date the vehicle was seized and taken to the custody by the financier till it was brought to his possess on. There was evidence tbat the petitioner had assailed the seizure by approaching this Court in O. J. C. 3985 of 1989. There was evidence tbat the petitioner had assailed the seizure by approaching this Court in O. J. C. 3985 of 1989. That being the case, this Court decided that even if the notice for making the vehicle off-road was not made in the prescribed Form-H as required under section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, since there was bona fides in the claim of the writ petitioior and the information required for making the vehicle off-road was there in the application by the registered owner to the regional Transport Authority, in the peculiar facts and circumstan ces of that case, such intimation should be treated as off-road intimation as required under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. This case, as such, cannot be of any assistance to the present petitioner. ( 6 ) SECTION 3 of the Motar Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 is"the charging section under which levy of the motor vehicles tax is. made. Sub-section (1)of Section 3 of the Act reads as follows :. 'subject to the other provisions of this Act, on and from the date of commencement of this Act there shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use within the State a tax at the rate specified in the schedule. "explanation to Section 3 makes it clear that an owner who keeps a transport vehicle for which the certificate of fitness and the certificate of registration are valid, or an owner who keep any other motor vehicle, of which the certificate of registration is valid, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be presumed to keep such vehicle for use : provided that if the 1 axing Officer finds a motor vehicle having been used on any day during the period for which the registration certificate of a vehicle has been suspended or cancelled under the relevant provisions of the motor Vehicles Act such vehicle shall be deemed to have been kept for use for the whole period without payment of the due tax. A plain reading of section 3 and its provisos makes it clear that a vehicle which has valid fitness and registration certificates is presumed to have been kept for use and in which case there shall be levy of motor vehicles tax'and even if such a. vehicle does not have a fitness and registration certificates but is otherwise found being used on road on any day notwithstanding such absence of fitness and registration certificates, the vehicle shall also be deemed to have been kept for use for the whole period. In the present case, the vehicle had the registration certificate and fitness certificate and as already stated, there' is no evidence on record to show that those certificates became invalid and inoperative and therefore, the presumption could be that the vehicle was kept for use attracting imposition of motor vehicles tax. In such circum stances to get rid of levy of motor vehicles tax, the registered owner of the vehicle is required to make an application as required under Section 10 of the motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 which speaks of prior intimation of temporary discontinuance of use of a vehicle. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows :"section JO. Prior Intimation of temporary discontinuance of use of a vehicle. (1) Whenever any motor vehicle is intended not to be. used for any period, the registered owner or person, having, possession or control there of shall on or before the date. of expiry of the term for which tax has been paid, deliver to the, taxing officer, an uader taking duly signed and verified in the prescribed form and manner specifying the period aforesaid and the place where the motor vehicle is to be kept along with such, other particulars as; may be prescribed and the registration certificate, fitness certificate, permit and tax token, then current and shall from time to time by delivering, further undertakings give prior intimation to the concerned taxing officer of the extension, if any, of the said period and the changes, if any, of the place where the motor vehicle shall be kept : provided that no such under taking shall relate to a period exceeding one year at a time. (2) If at any time during the period covered by an undertaking as aforesaid the motor vehicle is found being used or is kept at a place in contravention of any such undertaking, such vehicle shall, for the purposes s of this Act, be deemed to bave been used throughout the said period without payment of tax. (3) In the absence of ary undertaking delivered under sub-section (1)every motor vehicle liable to tax under this Act shall be deemed to have been used or kept for use within the State. "what transpires from Section 10 is that in the event a vehicle is intended to be made off-road, tbe registered owner or person having possession or control thereof shall on or before the date of expiry of the term for which tax has been paid, deliver to the taxing officer an undertaking duly signed arid verified in the prescribed form (Form-H) and in the manner specifying the period for which off road as prayed and indicating the place where the motor, vehicle is to be kept along with all other particulars as precsribed and also to surrender along with it, the documents of the vehicle such as fitness certificate, registration certificat. tax token etc. and in the event extension of this off-road period is required, a further undertaking giving prior intimation to the concerned taxing officer is staiutorily necessary, and in absence of such undertaking as per sub-section (3) of Section 10, every motor vehicle is liable to tax under this Act and shall he deemed to have been used or kept for use with in the State. ( 7 ) IN the present case tax was paid upto 30-7-1987 and off-road intimation having been given in time and in prescribed form ; vehicle was made off-road till 30-7-1988. if it was intended to be extended further, 'intimation should have made on any date prior to 30-7-1988, but it was not done. It was mode at a very belated stage on 20-1-1990, almost one and half year later. Opp. part No. 3 therefore, is justified in saying that such an application was delayed and extension of time could not have been enter tained unless tax for the period for which prior intimation for off-road was not given is paid. However, we find that the demand as per Annexure-1 is made for making payment of tax for'the period from 1-4-1988. part No. 3 therefore, is justified in saying that such an application was delayed and extension of time could not have been enter tained unless tax for the period for which prior intimation for off-road was not given is paid. However, we find that the demand as per Annexure-1 is made for making payment of tax for'the period from 1-4-1988. When the vehicle was made off-road by proper application till 30-7-1988, there is no justification for the authorities to demand tax from 1-4-1988. It could have 'been from 1-8-1988 instead of 1-4-1988. ( 8 ) EXCEPT this modification in Annexure-1 as mentioned above, we do not find any merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed, in the circumstances no costs. B. L. Hansaria, J. ( 9 ) I am in respectful agreement with the conclusion arrived at by my learned Brother. I, however, propose to add a few words of my own to deal with one submission of Shri Roy. ( 10 ) THAT submission is that as the vehicle in question was admittedly off-road from 1-10-1987 to 30-7-1988 and was, lying in the open campus of the petitioner having been badly dan aged and having lost its roadworthiness, and as it had not been taken out on road for being used, the tax in question could not be demanded from the petitioner in the absence of any finding by the taxing officer that the vehicle had been used on any day during the period for which the tax is being demanded. ( 11 ) SHRI Roy has advancer this contention keeping in view the proviso to Sections of the Act which aas been quoted in paragraph 6 of the judgment by my learned brother, Reference has been made to the proviso, because, according to the learned counsel, the Explanation to Section 3 has no application inasmuch as it was, not a case where it could be said that the petitioner kept the vehicle in tne relevant years with a valid certificated fitness. This submission has been made because, according to Shri Roy, the petitioner having not renewed the certificate of fitness, it could not be said that he was keeping the vehicle during the relevant period with a valid certificate of fitness. This submission has been made because, according to Shri Roy, the petitioner having not renewed the certificate of fitness, it could not be said that he was keeping the vehicle during the relevant period with a valid certificate of fitness. ( 12 ) THE relevant provision in sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, which may be quoted again : -"in the absence of any undertaking delivered under sub-section (1)every motor vehicle bable to tax uuder this Act shall be deemed to have been used or kept for use within the State. "let us, therefore, first see whether the vehicle in question, which was a truck, was liable to tax under the Act, Liability to tax has been fastened by Section 3 which states that here shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use a tax at the specified rate. The Explanation 3 raises a presumption that where the owne of a transport vehicle keeps such a vehicle for which a certificate of fitness and the registration certificate are valid it shall be presumed that the owne had kept such vehicle for use. The mere fact that the petitioner was not in possession of the certificate of fitness and the registration certificate at the relevant time, as averred in paragraph 2 of the pctitition, is not sufficient to hold that there was no valid certificate:of fitness and the certificate of registration at the relevant time. Non-posesssi on of these documents has nothing to do with the invalidity of the same. This being the factual position, the Explanation gets attracted which states that in soch a situation, the owner shall be presumed to keep such vehicle for use. Now, the expression "shall presume" has been defined In Section 4 of the evidence Act as below :"whenever it is directed by (his Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. Now, the expression "shall presume" has been defined In Section 4 of the evidence Act as below :"whenever it is directed by (his Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. "no doubt, the aforesaid definition is for the purpose of the Evidence Act, but ths same can be applied to a pari materla provision finding place in another act, as stated in paragraph 14 of State of Madras v. Baidyanath Iyer, AIR 1958 SC 61 , which was dealing with such an expression used in Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Ac (, When any statute says that certain thing shall be presumed, it is obligatory to do so unless and until it is disproved. We do not find any material on record to hold that the obligatory presump-tion, of which mention has been made in the Explanation, has been dispro-ved by placing any materials on record, ( 13 ) IN the aforesaid view of the matter, it has to be held that the vehicle in question was liable to tax under the Act. ( 14 ) THE next question is if the undertaking as provided by Section 10 (1) of the Act is not given, what would be the effect of the same. On facts, there is no dispute that the undertaking was not given in the present case for the years in question as required by Section 10 (1) In such a situation, sub-section (3) states that, the motor vehicle, if liable to tax under the Act, "shall be deemed to havn been used or kept for use within the state". The expression "shall be deaned" has its own legal connotation. It would be enough for the case at hand to note two oft-quoted passages dealing with the meaning, purpo. t and content of this expression. The first of these is that of Lord Justice James in ex pane Walton, In re ; Levy, 1881 (17) Ch. The expression "shall be deaned" has its own legal connotation. It would be enough for the case at hand to note two oft-quoted passages dealing with the meaning, purpo. t and content of this expression. The first of these is that of Lord Justice James in ex pane Walton, In re ; Levy, 1881 (17) Ch. D. 746, which reads as below ;"when a statute enacts tliat something shall be deemed to have been done, which, in fact and truth, was not done, the Court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purpose and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to and full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion. ' the next passage is that of Lord Asquith in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, 1952 AC 109, reading as under : 'if you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and instances, which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. . . . . . . . . . . . . The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs ; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit or imagine to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs. " ( 15 ) THE aforesaid being the legal import of the expression "shall be deemed", and when a statute says tliat a person is "deemed to be" something, the only meaning possible is that whereas he is not in reality that thing, the act of Parliament requires him to be treated as if he were, as observed by viscount Dunedin in Commissioner of Income Tax \. Bombay Trust Corpora-