G. B. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) AN interesting question of law arises for determination in this writ application, namely, whether levy of penalty under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for delayed payment of tax can be said to be a part of tax for non-payment of which an application for grant of temporary permit would be excluded from consideration. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of a Bus bearing Registration No. CSU 8922 and he had been regularly paying the tax for the vehicle in question until 1989. Between the period 1989 and 1993 there was some delay in depositing the tax for the vehicle in question and for such delayed payment of tax penalty was levied under Section 13 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Taxation Act") to (sic) Rs. 80,248 / -. It is alleged that while levying penalty no notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner came to know of the same only when the said amount was sought to be realised through a proceeding under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act. The initiation of the certificate proceeding was assailed in this Court in O. J. C. 2989/93 and that was disposed of by order dated 22-4-1993. This Court directed the taxing authority to reconsider the question of levy of penalty and also ordered that on depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- the petitioner's application for permit should be considered in accordance with law. It was further observed that until finalisation of the matter by the taxing authority the certificate proceeding should remain in abeyance. After disposal of the aforesaid writ application the petitioner appeared before the taxing authority, opposite party No. 2 in this writ application, and filed a petition and explained the circumstances for which there was delay in making the payment of tax. The petitioner also filed an application for refund of some amount which was paid in excess. The taxing authority, however, disposed of the matter confirming the earlier levy of penalty and after deducting Rs. 10,000/-which was deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22-4-1993 called upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs. 70,248/ -. But no order was passed on the application for refund. The taxing authority, however, disposed of the matter confirming the earlier levy of penalty and after deducting Rs. 10,000/-which was deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22-4-1993 called upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs. 70,248/ -. But no order was passed on the application for refund. Against the aforesaid order of the taxing authority the petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered as M. V. T. Appeal No. 7/ 93 and filed an application for stay. But the appellate authority did not consider the application for stay nor did it dispose of appeal in question. While the appeal was still (sic) the appellate authority the petitioner filed an application for grant of temporary permit on 10-1-1994 and along with the application filed a certificate from the appropriate authority indicating therein that the entire tax liability of the petitioner in respect of the vehicle in question had been cleared but the penalty levied had not been paid. The application for temporary permit was disposed of on 12-1-1994 and it was ordered that temporary permit for 26 days would be issued subject to the condition that the petitioner would deposit 50 per cent of the arrear penalty dues by giving an undertaking to clear up the balance amount in five equal monthly instalments. The aforesaid order of opposite party No. 4 has been annexed as Annexure 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and that appeal was registered as M. V. Appeal No. 8/94. The tribunal dismissed the appeal by order dated 18-1-1994, annexed as Annexure 7 and relying upon Rule 84 (2) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') came to hold that since clearance of tax for the vehicle was a condition precedent for consideration of an application for permit and since penalty was levied for default in payment of tax, non-payment of the penalty dues must be held to be non-payment of tax. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court. ( 3 ) MR. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court. ( 3 ) MR. G. P. Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that tax having been defined in Section 2 (i) of the Taxation Act to mean the tax leviable under the Act and in the Taxation Act legislature having maintained clear distinction between the levy of tax and levy of penalty cannot form a part of the tax and, therefore, sub-rule (2) of Rule 84 of the Rules when makes it a condition that tax clearance certificate in respect of the motor vehicle obtained from the taxing authority would be produced it would mean a tax payable for the vehicle and cannot include within its sweep the penalty leviable or levied for any delayed payment of tax. ( 4 ) THE learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department, on the other hand, contends that penalty being leviable for delayed payment of tax and in view of the statutory form providing for issuance of a tax clearance certificate which clearly brings within itself, the question of non-payment of penalty, the authorities below were fully justified in refusing to consider the petitioner's application for permit on account of non-clearance of the penalty levied against the vehicle in respect of which a temporary permit has been applied for. ( 5 ) THE correctness of the rival submissions would depend on an analysis of the different provisions of the Act, Taxation Act and the Rules. An application for temporary permit is required to be made under Section 87 of the Act and such a permit can be granted without following the procedure laid down in Section 80 if any of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 87 are satisfied. Though there is no requirement under the Act itself for submitting any tax clearance certificate in respect of the vehicle in question but Rule 84 (2) of the Rules provides that an application for permit shall be accompanied by the Motor Vehicles documents like (sic) registration certificate of the vehicle, fitness certificate and insurance certificate were required together with the tax clearance certificate in respect of the Motor Vehicles obtained from the taxing authority. Neither in the Act nor in the Rules there is any procedure provided for making an application to the taxing authority for getting a tax clearance certificate nor the expression "tax clearance certificate" has been defined either in the Act or in the Rule. But under sub-rule (2) of Rule 29 it is stipulated that an application for grant or renewal of the certificate of fitness, as the case may be, shall be made in form No. II accompanied by a tax clearance certificate in form No. III to the registering authority in whose functional area the vehicle is kept or whose functional area includes the major portion of the route or area to which the permit relating to the vehicle extends. Form No. III which has been mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 provides part III thereof as to the nature of certificate which can be issued and in that form it has been mentioned "there is no arrear tax; additional tax or penalty outstanding against the above". It is because of mention of penalty in the form the learned Standing Counsel contends that non-payment of penalty also tantamounts to non-payment of tax and, therefore, in the eye of law it must be held that the petitioner did not obtain the tax clearance certificate from the taxing officer. The tenability of such a contention will be examined by us at a. later point of time. Under the Taxation Act the expression "tax" has been defined in Section 2 (i) to mean the tax leviable under the Act. Section 3 of the Taxation Act provides for levy of tax and Section 3-A provides for levy of tax. Payment of tax and the manner of payment has been provided in Section 4 and Section 4-A provides for levy and payment of one time tax. Section 11 provides for refund of tax. Section 12 is the liability of successor of the vehicle to pay arrear tax, if any. Section 13 is the provision for levy of penalty if the tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid as specified in Sections 4 and 4-A. Section 14 provides for recovery of tax due as well as the penalty levied under Section 13. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 stipulates that no penalty can be imposed without giving a party concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 stipulates that no penalty can be imposed without giving a party concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. An analysis of the aforesaid provisions of the Taxation Act clearly indicates that the legislatures throughout the Taxation Act have dealt with the question of payment of tax separately from the question of leviability and payment of penalty. In view of the definition. of tax under the Taxation Act which admittedly does not include the penalty and in view of absence of any definition in the Act as well as in the Rules to include penalty within the concept of tax and further there being no provision in the Act itself for obtaining any tax clearance certificate it is difficult for us to accept the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Department that penalty is included within the tax for the purpose of obtaining a tax clearance certificate particularly on the basis of Form No. III supplied for issuance of such certificate. In a taxing statute when legislatures have defined a particular provision it would not be for a Court or any other authority to include within its sweep any other component which does not come within its purview on a plain literal meaning being given to the same. The definition of Tax in the Taxation Act is clear and unambiguous and is not susceptible of a construction that any penalty levied for delayed payment of tax would come within the concept of tax. In our considered opinion, the expression "tax clearance certificate" used in sub-rule (2) of Rule 84 of the Rules would mean a certificate from the taxing authority, that the entire tax in respect of the vehicle has been paid and there is no arrear due thereon and it is not susceptible of a construction that any penalty levied for delayed payment of such tax would tantamount to an arrear dues of tax not withstanding the statutory form having provided for the same. Consequently the impugned order passed by the opposite party No. 4 under Annexure 5 as well as the appellate order of the tribunal under Annexure 7 are erroneous and cannot be sustained. Consequently the impugned order passed by the opposite party No. 4 under Annexure 5 as well as the appellate order of the tribunal under Annexure 7 are erroneous and cannot be sustained. It must further be held that form No. III provided under the Rules meant for issuance of tax clearance certificate and providing therein to indicate any penalty outstanding against the vehicle is in arrear is without jurisdiction and invalid. In the premises, as aforesaid, and on the admitted position that there was no outstanding tax liability against the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No. OSU 8922, the order of opposite party No. 4 granting permit subject to payment of penalty levied as well as the order of the appellate authority affirming the same and dismissing the petitioner's appeal are invalid and inoperative and we accordingly quash the orders under Annexures 5 and 7, respectively. Opposite party No. 4 is directed to consider the question of grant of temporary permit in respect of the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No. OSU 8922 notwithstanding the fact that the levy of penalty under Section 13 of the Taxation Act is pending in appeal before the appellate authority. The writ application is accordingly allowed. No costs. ( 6 ) D. M. PATNAIK, J. :- I agree. Petition allowed. .