Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent in R. No. A3/3499/92, dated 4-1-1993 and to quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent as well. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that he is the owner of vehicle No. TCZ 9494 which is a medium motor goods vehicle covered by a public carrier permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Madras (North) to ply in the State of Tamil Nadu and the permit was valid up to 30-9-1993; that the Fitness Certificate was also valid up to 12-11-1990 which was not renewed thereafter; that the tax for this vehicle had been paid up to 30-9-1990; that on 9-8-1990, the vehicle met with a serious accident at Vikkaravandi and got damaged; that a case in Crime No. 509 of 1990 had been registered by the Vikkaravandi Police Station and the vehicle was also inspected by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Villupuram on 10-8-1990 and a CFX was issued by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Villupuram, cancelling the Fitness Certificate. Thereafter, the vehicle was brought to Madras and entrusted with the Motor Vehicles repairer and it was made ready only in July, 1992; that the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent on 24-7-1992 furnishing the details of the accident and the repairs that were undertaken and with a request to accept the future tax; that in the meantime, since the vehicle was under repair, it was not operated. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent much to the surprise of the petitioner, issued a demand notice dated 4-1-1993 directing the petitioner to remit the tax for the period from 1-10-1990 with penalty within seven days of the receipt of the demand notice; that in the above circumstances, no other alternative remedy left with, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition on ground that the tax calculated works out to Rs. 13, 520/-; that relying upon Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the respondent has issued the demand notice and the same is not relevant on such and other grounds as alleged in the writ petition and as sought for the relief prayed for in the writ petition. 5. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondent, besides repudiating the contentions of the petition in general, it would be specifically contended that on account of major repairs, the vehicle was garaged in the workshop; that as per Rule 3 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay tax; that in case of the transport vehicles which are covered by permit issued by any authority in the State, S. 8 of the Taxation Act provides for the period within which the tax is to be paid; that the owner of the vehicle in question has not paid the tax from 1-10-1990 onwards; that immediately after the alleged accident, the foremost duty on the part of the owner is to inform the stoppage of the vehicle to the authorities concerned, surrender the records and apply for permission for the stoppage of the vehicle in the prescribed form SPRA along with the payment of the prescribed fee. But the petitioner has not at all observed any of these requirements. 6. It would further be contended that even though the fitness certificate was cancelled by the Motor Vehicles Inspector concerned, it is the primary duty of the owner of the vehicle to intimate the stoppage of the vehicle to the office of the respondent immediately after the accident; that according to the judgment of this Court made in W.P. 20476 of 1992 dated 24-12-1992 that even if the fitness certificate is not valid, the vehicle shall be deemed to have been kept for use under R. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules if the vehicle is not covered by a permit; that in the light of the above judgment, the petitioner is liable to pay tax for the vehicle till the expiry of the permit as per S. 3 of the Act. 7. 7. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would cite an order delivered in M/s. Gopu Transport, Madras v. Regional Transport Officer, Madras West, reported in 1994 Writ LR 263 wherein it is held as follows :- "Motor Vehicles Act (1988) and Motor Vehicle Rules (1989), Rr. 172(6) and 254 - Demand of tax for vehicle stationed in a garage, outside the State and not made use of report of the Regional Transport Officer from the other State that the vehicle was stationed in a garage in the State - Demand of tax and levy of penalty, held, illegal and quashed." " Held : In the present case, admittedly, as per the certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Thane, Maharashtra State, the vehicle is in a workshop at Thane in the State of Maharashtra. The vehicle had not been used or kept for use in Tamil Nadu. Hence, S. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act cannot be invoked as proposed by the respondent under the impugned proceedings and when the vehicle itself was not operated on any public road, the question of levy of tax does not arise at all." 8. So far as the case in hand is concerned, it is entirely different from the case cited supra. It is not admitted herein by the respondent that the vehicle was in a workshop nor any certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer concerned to the effect of the vehicle having not been used during the period from 10-8-1990 to 30-9-1993 and that in the case cited, the fact of the vehicle being kept in the garage in the other State had been intimated and the Regional Transport Officer had accepted the said contention. But it is not the same in the case in hand wherein observing the legal requirements, the intimation had not been given in the manner prescribed and even according to the petitioner, the stoppage of the vehicle from the date of accident on 9-8-1990, had been intimated only on 24-7-1992 that too not in the prescribed form SPRA along with the payment of the prescribed fees as required under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. 9. 9. So long as the vehicle is covered by a valid permit, the permit holder is liable to pay tax under S. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1974 and since the petitioner had not complied with any of the said provisions of law, the impugned notice issued to the petitioner is in accordance with law and in the said circumstances, there is absolutely no valid or tangible reason for this Court to cause its interference into the impugned notice issued by the respondent herein which is well in confirmity with law. 10. No other infirmity or inconsistency or patent errors of law or perversity in approach so far as the coming into being of the impugned notice of demand dated 4-1-1993 has been either shown or brought forth on the part of the petitioner so as to call for interference by this Court and hence the interference sought for by the petitioner into the impugned notice is uncancelled for. In result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is dismissed. Petition dismissed.