Judgment : 1. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of a writ, calling for the records relating to the order of the Regional Transport Officer-cum- Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore (North), Coimbatore, in R.No.23191/U1/95 dated 28. 1995 and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner’s application filed on 27. 1995, for the grant of new public carrier permit in respect of the petitioner’s vehicle TNC 5337, forthwith. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle referred to above, which was originally covered by a public carrier permit valid upto 16. 1989. The Fitness Certificate of the vehicle was valid upto 11. 1988 Since the vehicle was an old one, petitioner wanted to repair the vehicle for getting renewal of the Fitness Certificate. With that intention he remitted the tax initially for the qusarter ending with 33. 1988 and also for 30.6.1988. He could not repair the vehicle since the spare parts were not available. Therefore, he decided to surrender the permit. So, on 26. 1988 he filed an application for surrender of the permit in the prescribed form. The respondent has not passed any Order on the same. Petitioner also surrendered the permit and produced the Registration Certificate of the vehicle for cancellation. He also declared that he is not intending to operate the vehicle on any public road, and the surrender may be accepted. Since no order was passed, petitioner again thought of repairing the vehicle and moved for a fresh permit. Such an application was filed on 23. 1995. On receipt of the said application respondent demanded tax with penalty for the vehicle for the period from 7. 1988 to 30.6.1989. That demand is challenged in this writ petition. In the various ground raised by the petitioner, it is said that when the petitioner himself has surrendered the permit declaring his intention to stop the service, and when he has not taken the vehicle on public road, he is not liable to pay tax. It is further averred that when the Fitness Certificate has already lapsed on 11. 1988, the liability, to pay tax thereafter also will not arise. It is further averred that when the Fitness Certificate has already lapsed on 11. 1988, the liability, to pay tax thereafter also will not arise. It is further said that the petitioner was also not heard before the impugned demand was made, and, therefore, it violates the principles of natural justice. Anyway, the application for grant of a new permit should not be stalled merely on the basis of a demand which is illegal. For the above reason, petitioner seeks the assistance of this Court to quash the demand notice. 3. A learned Judge of this Court admitted this writ petition, and, after notice, the learned Additional Government Pleader was also heard on instructions. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader was also heard on instructions. I do not think that the demand made by the respondent could be justified in this case. The demand for payment of tax is for the period from 7. 1988 till 30.6.1989 i.e. , for one year, with penalty. While extracting the facts, I have already stated that the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle was valid only upto 11. 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner has not applied for renewal of the Fitness Certificate since the vehicle itself was not fit to be taken on a public road. In such cases, the demand for payment of tax is unauthorised and illegal. It has been so held in the decision reported in, M/s. Gopu Transport, Madras-83 vs. R.T.O., Madras West, 1994 W.L.R.263. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of that judgment, Lakshman, J. has held thus:- “13. Section 2(8) of the Act defines ‘Tax” . It means, the tax leviable under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974. Section 3 of the Act deals with levy of tax. According to that section, tax shall be levied on every Motor Vehicle used or kept for use in the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, I am of the view, that only if the vehicle is used or kept for use in the State of Tamil Nadu, the tax is leviable. In the instant case, admittedly, the vehicle is stationed in Maharashtra State and hence levy of Tamil Nadu Tax and penalty do not arise at all. 14. Thus, I am of the view, that only if the vehicle is used or kept for use in the State of Tamil Nadu, the tax is leviable. In the instant case, admittedly, the vehicle is stationed in Maharashtra State and hence levy of Tamil Nadu Tax and penalty do not arise at all. 14. According to Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, it shall be a Condition of the permit of every transport vehicle will be so maintained as to be available for the service for which the permit was granted for the entire period of currency of the permit and that the permit is liable to be suspended or cancelled after due notice to permit holder if the vehicle has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was granted for a continuous period of more than ten days during the period for which the permit authorise the use of the vehicle on the road, unless the holder of the permit had obtained in writing the prior permission of the Transport Authority to suspend the service of the vehicle for a specific period exceeding ten days. Thus, Rule 172(6) is only a condition of the permit and any violation of the permit condition would lead to cancellation or suspension under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 172(6) cannot be invoked to collect tax under a different statute viz., Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. I have also held in several cases that no tax could be levied if there is physical verification report is available. In this case, there is a specific report from the Regional Transport Officer, Thane, Maharashtra State, to the effect that the vehicle in question is stationed in Thane and in such circumstances, I am of the view, that no tax is due to the State of Tamil Nadu.” In this case, the petitioner himself has reiterated that he is not intending to ply the vehicle and he has also surrendered the permit along with the Registration Certificate seeking an endorsement that there is no tax liability. The petitioner has complied with Rule 254 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, expressing his intention to stop service. The petitioner has complied with Rule 254 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, expressing his intention to stop service. When there is no Fitness Certificate and the permit is also surrendered, and when the respondent has no case that the vehicle was seen plying on public road during the relevant period of demand, the impugned notice cannot be justified. The decision of Lakshmanan, J. referred to supra, was followed by me in, G.Krishnaswamy v. The Regional Transport Officer, Nagapattinam, Order dated 10. 1997. W.P.No.13312 of 1996, wherein I have held that if there is no Fitness Certificate, there cannot be any valid registration and it is also not liable to be taxed under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The tax could be levied on a motor Vehicle only if it is used or kept for use. When there is no Fitness Certificate, and when there is no valid registration due to lack of Fitness Certificate, it cannot be said that the vehicle was used or kept for use. The question of tax liability will arise only if the vehicle is used or kept for use. Consequently, the impugned demand is quashed. 5. The only reason for not passing any final orders on the application of the petitioner, dated 27. 1995 for the grant of new public carrier permit is on the basis of the alleged demand. Once I hold that the demand is illegal, naturally the respondent is bound to pass final orders on the application dated 27. 1995 for the grant of a new public carrier permit. I direct the Respondent to pass final orders on the application of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs, WMP 19967 of 1995 for direction is closed.