Judgment : The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Regional Transport Officer, Madras-35, dated 212. 1994 by which the said authority, by endorsing a copy of that order to the petitioner required him to pay the motor vehicles tax for the goods carrier TSC 2160 in the sum of Rs.30,500 as home tax for the period from 10. 1992 to 312. 1993 and composite tax of Rs.93,250 payable to other states for the period from 10. 1989 to 33. 1994. It is not in dispute that this vehicle had a national permit whose validity was upto 24. 1994. It is also not in dispute that the previous owner of the vehicle had not applied for authorisation under Rule 17 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules read with Sec.88, Clause 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the period subsequent to 4. 1990. 2. The petitioner has averred that he purchased the vehicle at an auction held by the second respondent - The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, which had financed the third respondent, the previous owner of the vehicle who had defaulted in paying the amounts due to the second respondent-Corporation. The second respondent has averred that it seized the vehicle on 9. 1993 and the vehicle was delivered to the petitioner on 14. 1993. The consideration paid by the petitioner to the second respondent for the purchase of the vehicle is said to be Rs. 1,75,000. 3. The second respondent has stated that the vehicle had been sold in ‘as is where is’ condition including the outstanding liability if any for payment of tax in respect of the vehicle and that if there is any liability, the same has to be discharged by the petitioner alone. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the demand for payment for composite tax for the vehicle for the period from 4. 1990 is patently illegal as the national permit itself ceased to be valid, with the expiry of authorisation which had been granted prior to 4. 1990. Learned counsel referred to clause 48 of the conditions of the permit which specifically states that “permit shall cease to be valid unless the vehicle is covered by a valid authorisation issued by the competent authority.” 5. 1990. Learned counsel referred to clause 48 of the conditions of the permit which specifically states that “permit shall cease to be valid unless the vehicle is covered by a valid authorisation issued by the competent authority.” 5. The authorisation referred to in the permit is the authorisation referred to in Sec.88 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 87 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Sec.88 (14)(a) empowers the Central Government to make rules regulating authorisation fee payable for the issue of permit referred to in Sub-secs.(9) and (12) of Sec.88 although those subsections themselves do not refer to any authorisation. “Authorisation” fee is defined in para (b) of the Explanation following Sub-sec.(14) of Sec.88 as “the annual fee not exceeding Rs 1,000 which may be charged by the appropriate authority of State to enable the Motor Vehicle covered by the permit referred to in Sub-secs.(9) and (12) to be used in other States subject to payment of taxes or fees if any levied by the State Government concerned.” 6. Rule 87 of the Centra] Motor Vehicles Rules prescribes the form in which application for authorisation is to be made namely F.40, and specifies the fee payable as Rs.500. The form in which the authorisation is to be granted is prescribed by Rule 87 (2) and that is in Form No.47. The period of validity of the authorisation is specified in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 87 as not exceeding one year. Form 46 requires the applicant to furnish information regarding the vehicle and also requires the applicant to enclose bank draft to that application for the amount of the authorisation fee along with the application. Form No.47 provides for authorising the use of the vehicle in the State to be named subject to the payment of taxes by the permit holder to the respective states. 7. Though the object of levying authorisation fee appears to be merely to ensure collection of additional revenue to the State concerned by way of collecting authorisation fee even after the permit has been issued, nevertheless the validity of the permit is made subject to the authorisation being obtained and this authorisation has to be obtained at intervals of not more than one year. Condition 48 incorporated in the permit also shows that the National permit itself shall cease to be valid unless the vehicle is covered by a valid authorisation issued by the competent authority. 8. If the permit ceases to be valid on account of the holder of the permit not applying for authorisation, the vehicle in respect of which the permit has been issued, cannot be plied in the other States. If the vehicle is not authorised for use in the other States and is not kept for use in any of those states, the need for collecting tax payable to the other states mentioned in the permit does not arise. 9. It has therefore to be held that the petitioner is not liable to pay composite tax for the period subsequent to 4. 1990 in view of the fact that the vehicle was not covered by a valid authorisation. This however is not to say that if it is found as a matter of fact that the vehicle had been used in the other States, the States concerned is not competent to take action as also recover the tax for such use in the State. The authority which issued the permit cannot however assume that the vehicle had been used in the other States contrary to the terms of the permit when the permit itself had ceased to be effective by reason of the period for which authorisation had been issued having come to an end. 10. As regards the petitioner’s contention that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax even to the State of Tamil Nadu for the vehicle which was kept within the State of Tamil Nadu, for the period subsequent to 10. 1993, that contention has to be rejected. The vehicle was admittedly, in the State of Tamil Nadu and was, as far is known, fit for use on the roads and apparently was used. It is for the owner of the vehicle to establish that the conditions required to be fulfilled for obtaining exemption or remission of tax, had been fulfilled. The petitioner cannot be exonerated from his legal obligation to pay the tax merely because it is asserted that the vehicle was not in use. 11. Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, levies tax on motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner cannot be exonerated from his legal obligation to pay the tax merely because it is asserted that the vehicle was not in use. 11. Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, levies tax on motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State of Tamil Nadu. In case of non-user it is open to the owner of the vehicle to apply for remission for which provisions is made in Sec.13. It is not open to the owner of the vehicle to withhold payment of tax on the ground of alleged non-user. This Court has held in the case of Raj Fernandas v. Regional Transport Officer, Madras, 1993 Writ L.R. 476 as also in the case of N.Dharmalingam v. The Regional Transport Officer, Madras, I.L.R. (1994)3 Mad. 864, that the tax levied under Sec.3 is required to be paid and the same cannot be withheld and the demand for payment of tax levied under that section cannot be regarded as invalid merely on the ground that the owner may be entitled to obtain a remission under Sec.13 of the Act. Tax has to be paid and it is only if the owner is able to make out a case for remission, that a refund may be sought. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection referred to the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Gopu Transport, Madras v. The Regional Transport Officer, West Madras, 1994 Writ LR. 263. The facts of that case are altogether different and that decision is not of any assistance to the petitioner. In that case the vehicle was found to have remained outside the State, and had not been brought to or used in this State and consequently the charge under Sec.3 was not attracted. 13. In the counter filed by the third respondent, it has been contended that the petitioner has no right to maintain the petition, as no demand has been raised against the petitioner. This stand of the third respondent is clearly unsustainable and has to be rejected. Sec.7 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1974 clearly provides inter alia that the person succeeding to the ownership of the vehicle, will be liable to pay arrears of tax in respect of that vehicle. The petitioner being the purchaser of the vehicle is affected by the impugned demand and is entitled to challenge the same. 14. Sec.7 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1974 clearly provides inter alia that the person succeeding to the ownership of the vehicle, will be liable to pay arrears of tax in respect of that vehicle. The petitioner being the purchaser of the vehicle is affected by the impugned demand and is entitled to challenge the same. 14. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The third respondent shall recompute the amount of tax due in respect of this vehicle confining the demand for composite tax to the period upto 33. 1990. The petitioner is liable to pay arrears of tax due to the State of Tamil Nadu from 10. 1992 from which date the tax admittedly has remained unpaid. 15. The impugned order is therefore set aside to the extent indicated, with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law and in accordance with the directions contained in this order.