Judgment : The petitioner in the instant writ application has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to stop realisation of additional tax on his vehicle bearing registration No. WB-23/0398 from the petitioner under the West Bengal Additional Tax and one time tax on Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the additional tax)-and further directing the respondents to refund the amount of additional tax realised already by the respondents, till 30.4.96 amounting to Rs. 36,116.75 p. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman, that after obtaining loan from the West Bengal Financial Corporation he purchased the vehicle in question bearing registration No. WB-23/0398. The said bus has not been issued with any route permit as yet. The vehicle was originally recorded as idle by the registering authority but subsequently in 1990 such recording was changed to "public service vehicle". It is the grievance of the petitioner that although, according to him he is not liable to pay any additional tax in respect of his aforesaid vehicle, the respondents illegally are realising such additional tax in respect of his vehicle. Although the petitioner from time to time applied for grant of temporary permit in respect of the said vehicle, according to the petitioner the respondents illegally were issuing special permit as a result whereof he has to pay higher fees. Ultimately the petitioner moved this Hon'ble Court und or Article 226 of the Constitution whereupon S.R. Misra. J. by judgment and order dated 26.2.94 disposed of the writ application by directing the respondents that when temporary permit was being applied for by the petitioner, the respondents cannot issue Special permit unless asked for by the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the challenge as to the vires of the Additional Tax Act failed, the State Government by notification directed realisation of only additional tax without penalty but in violation of the said notification the respondents unlawfully realised additional tax and penalty as well. Challenging the said action of the respondents, the petitioner moved this Hon'ble Court whereupon. Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. by order dated June 15, 1995, allowed the writ application directing refund of the amount recovered by the respondents towards penalty. 3. It is not disputed that the aforesaid amount of penalty has now been refunded by the respondents. Challenging the said action of the respondents, the petitioner moved this Hon'ble Court whereupon. Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. by order dated June 15, 1995, allowed the writ application directing refund of the amount recovered by the respondents towards penalty. 3. It is not disputed that the aforesaid amount of penalty has now been refunded by the respondents. But the petitioner makes a grievance that the respondents cannot realise additional tax from the petitioner at all, as according to him, he is not liable to pay such tax The petitioner who is now appearing in person has submitted Inter alto that under the any provisions of Additional Tax Act, the petitioner is not liable to pay additional tax According to him, it is only such vehicles which are registered outside the state and will be coming into the State of West Bengal are liable to pay additional tax and according to the petitioner since the petitioner is already liable to pay tax under the provisions of West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1989, for user of the road, additional tax cannot be realised from him under the Additional Tax Act. 4. Mr. Khan, appearing for the respondents opposed such prayer of the petitioner contending inter alia that Section 3 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act makes it absolutely clear that vehicle of the petitioner being registered in West Bengal and he also being in control and possession of the vehicle, he is certainly liable to pay additional tax and no wrong has been committed by the respondents in realising such tax. 5. Having heard the petitioner who is appearing in person and the learned Advocate for the respondents, It appears to this Court that the writ application is misconceived. 6. It appears to this Court that admittedly on a previous occasion the writ petitioner moved writ application being Matter No. 678 of 1995 before the Original Side of this Hon'ble Court inter alia praying for direction for refund of penalty upon additional tax realised by the respondents. The grievance in the said writ application inter alia was that such penalty could not have been realised by the respondents by virtue of the interim order passed in the writ applications challenging the vires of that Act. The grievance in the said writ application inter alia was that such penalty could not have been realised by the respondents by virtue of the interim order passed in the writ applications challenging the vires of that Act. But after the writ application was dismissed, a circular was issued by the State Government fixing a date for payment of additional tax and further directing inter alia that those who will not pay additional tax by 30.9.94 will have to pay penalty but the respondents wrongfully realised penalty even before the expiry of the said date. 7. As pointed out hereinabove the aforesaid writ application was allowed by S.K. Sen, J directing refund of the aforesaid amount of penalty. It will thus appear from the said proceedings that in the said proceedings the case of the petitioner was that the respondents could not have been realised the penalty on additional tax. Although the petitioner had every opportunity to raise the contention that he was not at all liable to pay additional tax, such point was not raised and be merely prayed for refund of the penalty which was imposed on additional tax. Be never prayed for refund of additional tax which was realised. The petitioner thus having opportunity to raise such point, but not caring to do so, now cannot be allowed to raise such point once again. On that ground alone the writ application is liable to fail. 8. On merits also I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner. Section 3 of the Additional Tax Act is absolutely clear in this regard which provides inter alia that every owner of a registered motor vehicle or every person owns or keeps in his possession or control any motor vehicle as described in Schedule I shall pay additional tax at the rate specified therein against the said vehicle. Admittedly the vehicle of the petitioner comes under Clause B (1) (f) of Schedule I. The petitioner, therefore, is liable to pay additional tax under the said Additional Tax Act being owner of a registered motor vehicle of the description contained in Schedule I. 9. Admittedly the vehicle of the petitioner comes under Clause B (1) (f) of Schedule I. The petitioner, therefore, is liable to pay additional tax under the said Additional Tax Act being owner of a registered motor vehicle of the description contained in Schedule I. 9. It is pertinent to note in this connection that the vires of the aforesaid Additional Tax Act was challenged by several operators before this Hon'ble Court and the said writ petition was ultimately dismissed and the constitutional vires of the Act was upheld upto the Supreme Court. The contention of the petitioner that be is not liable to pay such tax as under West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979, be Is already paying such tax and only vehicles registered outside the State and coming to West Bengal are liable to pay such tax is not tenable at all. Section 3 of the Additional Tax Act makes no such exception. The scope and purport of the tax to be paid under the two different Acts are different from each other and the constitutionality of the Additional Tax Act having bee. upheld, the petitioner is bound to pay additional tax. This case falls squarely within the provision of Section 3 of the Act. 10. It is further sought to be contended by the petitioner that he is not liable to pay tax as his bus is registered as 'idle bus' which bas been wrongly changed as contract carriage. It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that such recording was made as early as in the year 1990 and the petitioner has not challenged the same in any Court of law nor such recording has been set aside by any Court. It is to be recorded that the petitioner in his petition admits that his vehicle is being plied from time to time. 11. It is the further case of the petitioner that be should be exempted from payment of such tax as be never operates his vehicle. The same is not to be decided by the Writ Court but it is for the petitioner to approach the Taxing Officer and it is for the Taxing Officer to decide such question in accordance with law. 12. The same is not to be decided by the Writ Court but it is for the petitioner to approach the Taxing Officer and it is for the Taxing Officer to decide such question in accordance with law. 12. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not come to any decision whether under the Additional Tax Act such exemption can at all be granted or not for non-plying of the vehicle as it is beyond the scope of the present writ proceedings. The petitioner has also sought to introduce a number of facts about the so called seizure of his bus by way of supplementary affidavit and has prayed, for direction to consider his application for permanent permit. These are the matters which are beyond the scope of enquiry of the present writ proceedings and the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by any such subsequent action of the respondents, be will be at liberty to move afresh, before the appropriate forum for appropriate relief. But so far as the present writ application is concerned, I do not find any merit in the contention of the writ petitioner. 13. For the reasons stated above the writ application falls and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. XEROX certified copy, if applied for, be delivered expeditiously.