Judgment 1. By consent of both the counsel, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is holding a national permit issued by the respondent in respect of vehicle TSL 2535 with valid authorisation to ply in the States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala Karnataka, Maharashtra, Pondicherry and another vehicle TN 09 1512 authorised to ply in the States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Pondicherry. The said permit is valid upto 14.4.2002. The authorisation is valid for the period of one year from 15.4.1997 to 14.4.1998. Subsequent to 14.4.1998, the petitioner did not get the authorisation to ply the vehicle in other States. But, however, the petitioner submitted an application for surrender of the permit on 29.6.1998 in respect of both the vehicles which was received in the office of the respondent on 30.4.1998. Subsequent to the receipt of the application for surrender of the permit, the respondent by order dated 6.7.1998 has cancelled the permit under Sec.86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Sec.18 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 with effect from 29.6.1998. Thereafter, the respondent has returned the petitioners application for surrender by proceedings dated 8.7.1998 stating that the surrender application will be considered only after the payment of the composite tax due to of the States. As against the return of the application for surrender in respect of both the vehicles, the present writ petitions have been filed. 3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the tax had been paid upto 30.6.1998. So far as the authorisation to ply in the other States are concerned. The petitioner subsequent to the period 14.4.1998 did not get any authorisation. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioners vehicles were plying in other States even though there is no authorisation. When the authorisation has not been extended or renewed subsequent to 14.4.1998 the respondent has no authority to insist that payment composite tax due to the other States for consideration of the application for renewal. 4. On the contrary, the learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioners permit in respect of both the vehicles had been cancelled by the respondent. When the authorisation has not been extended or renewed subsequent to 14.4.1998 the respondent has no authority to insist that payment composite tax due to the other States for consideration of the application for renewal. 4. On the contrary, the learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioners permit in respect of both the vehicles had been cancelled by the respondent. Hence the petitioner has to approach the respondent for consideration of her application for surrender and it is for the respondent to take a decision. 5. I carefully considered the contention of both the counsel. In fact the short question is when the petitioner has not extended the authorisation to ply in other States, whether the petitioner can be forced or compelled to pay the composite tax in respect of other States. 6. This question came up for consideration before this Court on an earlier occasion. His Lordship Jayasimha Babu, J. in the judgment reported in Palaniappan v. R.T.O., Madras (North) Palaniappan v. R.T.O., Madras (North) Palaniappan v. R.T.O., Madras (North) , (1995)1 L.W. 424 has held as follows: “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 these States, the need for collecting tax payable to the other States mentioned in the permit does not arise. It has therefore to be held that the petitioner is not liable to pay composite tax for the period subsequent to 1.4.1990 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 recovery the tax for much was in the State. The authority which issued the permit cannot be however assume that the vehicle had been used in the other States contrary to the terms of the permit, when the permit itself had caused to be effective by reason of the period for which authorisation had been issued having come it an end.” 7. The authority which issued the permit cannot be however assume that the vehicle had been used in the other States contrary to the terms of the permit, when the permit itself had caused to be effective by reason of the period for which authorisation had been issued having come it an end.” 7. In the judgment reported in Mohideen Pitchai v. The Regional Transport Officer, Tirunelveli , 1998 Writ L.R. 152 His Lordship Subramani, J, after following the principles laid down by Jayasimha Babu, J., in the above judgment, has held as follows: “In view of the settled legal position, let us consider the facts in this case. Even though the vehicle had a valid permit for a period of five years upto 6.1.1999, admittedly the authorisation expired on 5.1.1995. Petitioner did not apply for renewal of authorisation, and the vehicle was also kept in the workshop for effecting repairs due to the accident, from November, 1996. After 5.1.1995, none of the composite. States has found the vehicle found lying anywhere in their States, nor was it used in these States. If the vehicle could not be used in the composite States, there is no question of demanding tax for these States, or for payment of composite fee. Naturally, the demand made by the respondent towards tax and composite fee with penalty, for the State of Kerala, “Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Pondicherry, is one without jurisdiction, and it is declared that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount as demanded, the show-cause notice issued by the respondent is one without jurisdiction and, therefore, it is quashed.” 8. In an unreported judgment in Ravichandran v. The Regional Transport Authority, Cudalore, W.P.No.4130 of 1996, dated 29.4.1998 the same principle has been followed. 9. In view of the well settled principle, I am of the view that the respondent cannot compel or insist the payment of composite tax by the petitioner. 10. Hence, the respondent directed to consider the application of the petitioner for the surrender of the permit in respect of two vehicle TSL.2536 and TN.09 J.1512 in accordance with law, without insisting for the composite tax. 11. The writ petition are accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.