S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ application, the order of the Deputy Transport commissioner and Secretary, Regional transport Authority, Krishna at Vijayawada, the 1st respondent herein bearing No. AP 3/dtc/91, dated 28-2-1992 confirming the demand notice issued by the Assistant secretary, Regional Transport Authority, krishna at Vijayawada, the 2nd respondent herein demanding penalty of Rs. 16,644/- in proceedings No. 54089/a3/91, dated 10-9-1991 is as. sailed. The petitioner s motor vehicle was seized by the concerned Motor Vehicle inspector on 29-8-1991 on the alleged ground that the same was plied as stage carriage. On the basis of the report submitted by the motor Vehicle Inspector, the 2nd respondent herein issued show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation. On consideration of the explanation, the 2nd respondent herein issued the demand notice No. 54089/a3/91, dated 10-9-1991 demanding a sum of Rs. 16,644/- towards tax and a sum of Rs. 16,644/- towards penalty and a sum of Rs. 2,070/- towards compounding fee. At that stage, the petitionr filed Writ Petition No. 11825 of 1991 in this Court seeking release of the vehicle and this Court in WPMP No. 15057 of 1991 filed in the said writ petition directed the 2nd respondent herein to release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner upon the petitioner paying or depositing with the 2nd respondent a sum of Rs. 16,644/- being tax demand + Rs. 1,000/- and upon the petitioner giving to the 2nd respondent a written undertaking to the effect that until further orders of the Court, he would not sell, transfer, alienate or encumber the subject motor vehicle. At the time of hearing, it was brought to our notice by the learned counsel that subsequently the above writ petition was also disposed of by order dated 7-11-1991 directing the petitioner to avail appeal remedy as regards penalty. In other words, the demand notice issued by the 2nd respondent regarding tax became final. That part of the demand notice is not set aside by this Curt in the earlier writ proceedings. ( 2 ) AS permitted by this Court, the petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent, appellate authority. As regards the demand regarding the penalty by the impugned proceeding No. AP. 3/dtc/91, dated 28-2-1992,. the appeal is dismissed. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the same. ( 2 ) AS permitted by this Court, the petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent, appellate authority. As regards the demand regarding the penalty by the impugned proceeding No. AP. 3/dtc/91, dated 28-2-1992,. the appeal is dismissed. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the same. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in Y. Peda venkaiah v. RTO Nellore and others, AIR 1977 AP 227, would contend that since the 2nd respondent issued a composite notice demanding tax as well as penalty, that notice should be treated to be a nullity in the eye of law and if it is so treated, it could not be said that the petitioner refused to pay the tax demanded so as to attract the provisions of section 6 of the A. P. Motor Vehicles taxation Act, 1963 (for short "the Act" ). Learned Counsel would further maintain that in such an event the 2nd respondent raising any demand regarding penalty would not arise. The learned Counsel would conclude stating that the appellate authority has also not applied its mind to these aspects in dismissing the appeal and confirming the demand as regards penalty. On the other hand, learned Special Government pleader for Taxes would support the impugned order. ( 4 ) WE do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The relevant portion of the observations of the Full Bench in paragraph 18 of the judgment to which our attention was drawn reads:"the third question for consideration is whether penalty can be levied in the circumstances of the case. Under section 6 of the Act penalty can be levied only if the tax due in respect of the motor vehicles has not been paid. In this case it could not be said that any tax was due before the order levying penalty was made. The vehicle was stopped in nellore and the officer concerned gave a show-cause notice as to why it should not be taxed as a stage carriage and after considering the explanation, passed an order that it was plying as a stage carriage and hence tax had to be paid on that footing. It was in the very same order that penalty also was levied. It was in the very same order that penalty also was levied. It was only when the officer held that the carriage was used as a stage carriage and tax was payable on that footing and a demand was made to pay the tax, it can be said that a tax became due. There was no tax due before such determination and demand. " ( 5 ) BEFORE adverting to the relevant statutory provisions, should it be noticed at the threshold that the demand made by the 2nd respondent regarding tax has become final. There is absolutely no supporting material or authority including the Full Bench decision to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The composite demand notice issued by the 2nd respondent should not be treated as a nullity in the eye of law only on the count that in the composite notice both the tax as well as the penalty was demanded. Such an interpretation cannot be placed by applying any norm or principle or rule of interpretation. Be that as it may, such interpretation would also defeat the very objective of the statute. ( 6 ) SECTION 3 of the Taxation Act deals with levy of tax on motor vehicles. Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 14 reads:"the tax levied under this Act shall be paid in advance and in the manner specified in Section 11, by the registered owner of the motor vehicle or any other person having possession or control thereof, at his choice, either quarterly, half yearly or annually on a licence to be taken out by him for that quarter, half year or year, within fifteen days from commencement of the quarter, half year or year, as the case may be. The tax for half-year licence shall not exceed twice, and the tax for an annual licence shall not exceed four times the tax for a quarterly licence. The Government may grant such rebates as may be prescribed in the case of half-yearly and annual licence". The tax for half-year licence shall not exceed twice, and the tax for an annual licence shall not exceed four times the tax for a quarterly licence. The Government may grant such rebates as may be prescribed in the case of half-yearly and annual licence". Section 6 reads:"if the tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid as specified in Section 4 the registered owner or the person having the possession or control thereof shall, in addition to payment of the tax due to be liable to a penalty which may extend to twice the quarterly tax in respect of that vehicle, to be levied by such officer, by order in writing and in such manner as may be prescribed : provided that if the lumpsum tax under this Act has not been paid, the registered owner or the person having possession or control thereof shall, in addition to payment of the tax due, be liable to penalty which may extend to twice the lumpsum tax payable under clause (aa) of sub-section (1) of Section 4". ( 7 ) AS regards penalty, Section 6 is the charging section. The language employed under Section 6 of the Act is precise, clear, unambiguous and it does not admit more than one meaning. The liability to pay the penalty is attracted if the tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid as specified under Section 4. Therefore, the moot question that falls for our consideration is whether in the instant case the petitioner was guilty of not paying the tax due in respect of his motor vehicle. The answer should be positive. We say this because when he received the composite notice from the 2nd respondent demanding tax as well as the penalty, there was absolutely no legal bar for the petitioner to pay the tax at least, though by virtue of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, the demand regarding the penalty against the petitioner was not sustainable. Simply because this Court directed the petitioner to pay the tax of Rs. 16,644/- + Rs. 1,000/- as a condition to release the motor vehicle to the custody of the petitioner in WPMP No. 15057 of 1991 in WP No. 11825 of 1991, it cannot be said that the petitioner complied with the liability cast on him under Section 4 of the act. 16,644/- + Rs. 1,000/- as a condition to release the motor vehicle to the custody of the petitioner in WPMP No. 15057 of 1991 in WP No. 11825 of 1991, it cannot be said that the petitioner complied with the liability cast on him under Section 4 of the act. Since the petitioner has plied the vehicle as stage carriage, he ought to have paid the tax on that count for the quarter ending 30-9-1991 before 30-6-1991. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the tax. ( 8 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.