JUDGMENT : P. Shanmugam, J. All these Original Petitions challenge the demand of tax for unauthorised plying as contract carriage vehicle. Some of the petitioners are having stage carriage permit, but all of them have plied the vehicle as contract carriage on a particular date. For the alleged violation of permit condition, namely, plying without contract carriage permit, the petitioners have compounded the offence by paying a fine. However, now demands are raised for paying motor vehicles tax for the whole quarter. The challenge in the Original Petition is against such demand. S. 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the grant of stage carriage permit. Clause (xviii) of sub-s. (2) of S. 72 states that the R.T. A. while granting the stage carriage permit may impose a condition subject to which the vehicle may be used as a contract carriage permit. S. 74 deals with the grant of contract carriage permit. R. 143 of me Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules sets out the form of permit to be issued. By virtue of these provisions, while obtaining a stage carriage permit, an operator is also entitled to incorporate a condition to use the vehicle as a contract carriage. Therefore, in all the cases where the regular stage carriage permits are granted, the operators are permitted to use the vehicle also as a contract carriage, by virtue of this specific incorporation of the condition. But the same permission would not apply to operators who have only temporary permit. There is no provision for incorporating such a condition for a temporary permit. In the Original Petitions, the petitioners have not challenged the compounding as such for the alleged violation of permit conditions under S. 86 of the Act. 2. The demands are made under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. S. 4 obliges an operator to pay the tax under S. 3 of the Act in advance for a quarter. S. 7 enables the operator to pay additional tax for the period for which the higher rate of tax is payable for having used or proposed to be used. Under the schedule referable to S. 3(1) the tax payable for vehicle permitted to ply solely as a contract carriage and vehicles permitted to ply as stage carriage are different. S. 7 enables the operator to pay additional tax for the period for which the higher rate of tax is payable for having used or proposed to be used. Under the schedule referable to S. 3(1) the tax payable for vehicle permitted to ply solely as a contract carriage and vehicles permitted to ply as stage carriage are different. The operator who intends to operate the stage carriage as a contract carriage has to pay the contract carriage tax in advance for the period during which he intends to operate. There is no provision under S. 4 for calculating the tax subsequent to the use of the vehicle. Sub-s. 5 of S. 4 states that no motor vehicle liable to tax under S. 3 shall be used in the State, unless a valid tax licence obtained under sub-s. (3) is displayed on the vehicle in the prescribed manner. S. 11 enables a detention of the vehicle plying without paying the tax. There is a provision for penalty under S. 16. 3. The contention of the petitioners that they are liable to pay tax only for the period for which the vehicles was used cannot be accepted for the reason that the tax is payable for a quarter. A Full Bench of this Court in R.K.V. Motors & Timbers (P) Ltd. v. Regional Transport Officer ( 1982 KLT 166 ) had recorded a concession of the Advocate General that any operator would be entitled to claim exemption even for the 2nd month or the second and third months, though prima facia the wording of the section would not take in such cases for exemption. The only contingency in which exemption cannot be claimed will be where the non-user of the vehicle is for a period less than one month in a quarter. In John Cherian v. State of Kerala (1982 (1) ILR Kerala 424) this court held that for claiming exemption from tax on the ground of non-use, certificate of registration need not be submitted along with the intimation. However, this decision would not help the petitioners as they are not claiming exemption from the payment of tax. 4. In John Cherian v. State of Kerala (1982 (1) ILR Kerala 424) this court held that for claiming exemption from tax on the ground of non-use, certificate of registration need not be submitted along with the intimation. However, this decision would not help the petitioners as they are not claiming exemption from the payment of tax. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a decision of this Court in Sivapalan v. R T. O. Kollam ( 1996 (2) KLT 632 ), In that decision, it was held that once offence of violation of permit condition is compounded, there cannot be any direction to remit tax at contract carriage rate due for the quarter. The learned Judge did not have the opportunity of considering the question in the light of the requirement under the taxation Act. No arguments are advanced on the liability of the petitioners to pay tax under the said Act. Petitioner in that case preceded on the basis that once the offence is compounded, no further action is to be initiated against the offender. The department is not proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act after compounding the offence under B. 86(5). The proceedings taken by the department is under a different Act. 5. If the case of the petitioner, namely, that they need to pay only the tax for the period of their use and that too only subsequent to their use, is accepted, it would lead to anomalous and disastrous consequences. It will be open to the operators to ply the vehicle and as and when they have found that they have plied vehicle as a contract carriage permit, they need pay only the tax for the particular period. If the operation is not noted, then there may not be any need to pay the tax at all. Only in order to avoid any such scope for misuse of a permit, the requirement of payment of tax in advance has been incorporated under R. 4. At best they can pay tax for a month towards the contract carriage in advance for plying the vehicle. If the operator plies the vehicle without payment of tax, then all other consequences like detention, penalty etc. would follow. At best they can pay tax for a month towards the contract carriage in advance for plying the vehicle. If the operator plies the vehicle without payment of tax, then all other consequences like detention, penalty etc. would follow. Therefore, in four cases, where the petitioners are having regular stage carriage permits with a condition enabling them to ply as contract carriage are directed to pay tax for a quarter, towards contract carriage, payable during the relevant period. The petitioners who are having only a temporary permit, since they have compounded their offence for plying without violation of the conditions of the permit, are also permitted to pay the tax for a quarter towards contract carriage. For all these reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the demand of tax. Hence, the Original Petitions are dismissed.