S. R. NAYAK, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 2-2-2000 in appeal No. 468/a2/dtc/1999 passed by the deputy Transport Commissioner and appellate Authority, Nellore, the 1st respondent herein dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the Regional transport Officer, Ongole in R. No. 3685/b2/ 99, 14-9-1999 and confirming the demand of Rs. 34,780/- on the difference of tax payable in respect of the stage carriage motor vehicle bearing Registration no. AP 27t-7272. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts leading to the filing of this writ petition be stated briefly as under: ( 3 ) THE petitioner is the permit holder of the stage carriage bearing Registration no. AP 27t-7272. On 19-4-1999 at 7. 30 am, the Additional Motor Vehicles Inspector, ongole had stopped and checked the stage carriage on the outskirts of santhanuthalapadu and found the following irregularities. "1, The vehicle is being operated as Express stage Carriage on an authorised route. 2, The driver and conductor are not in uniform 3, The Registration Certificate, Insurance certificate, Fitness Certificate, Permit and driving Licence are not produced 4, No proof of tax payment for the Quarter ending 30-6-1999 or Quarter Ending 31-3-1999 is produced 5, Trip sheet is not maintained. " ( 4 ) IN that view of the matter, the vehicle was seized under Section 207 of the motor Vehicles Act and under Section 8 of the A. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Pending enquiry, the vehicle was released to the petitioner in pursuance of the order made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9225/99, dated 26-4-1999. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in R. No. 3685/a2/99, dated 28-4-1999 directing him to submit his explanation, if any, as to why the difference of tax should not be collected for plying the vehicle between Ongole and Podili as an express Stage Carnage. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10-9-1999. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it is stated that he had taken the vehicle to ongole for getting certain repairs carried out as proper workshops are not available at Podili; after the repairs the vehicle was taken for trial run on 19-4-1999 and when it was on trial run, the vehicle was checked. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it is stated that he had taken the vehicle to ongole for getting certain repairs carried out as proper workshops are not available at Podili; after the repairs the vehicle was taken for trial run on 19-4-1999 and when it was on trial run, the vehicle was checked. The petitioner maintained that the persons who were found travelling in the vehicle were only the crew of the vehicle, mechanic of the workshop in which the repairs of the vehicle were carried out and the staff of the workshop and there were no passengers as such. The 2nd respondent- licensing authority on consideration of the explanation was not persuaded to accept the same and accordingly rejected the claim of the petitioner and confirmed the demand. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the order of the 1st respondent. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special government Pleader for Taxes. Although, the learned Counsel for the petitioner attempted to contest the correctness of the finding recorded by the respondent authorities on facts meekly, in our opinion, the finding recorded by the respondent authorities is well founded and based on evidence. The 1st respondent appellate authority dealing with the merits of the matter has observed thus: "as seen from the VCR No. 198130 dated 19-4-1999 a statement has been recorded from the crew of the vehicle to the effect that 12 passengers were there in the vehicle at the time of check. The appellant though states that the vehicle was taken for a trial run, could not produce any evidence to that effect. In fact, when a Stage Carriage which is supposed to be operated on town service route viz. , Podili to Gundla samudram, is to be taken to Ongole for repairs, he should have applied for permission under Section 66 (3) (p) of M. V. Act and he did not choose to do so. He could not explain as to why 14 persons are there in the vehicle during a trial run, which is quite uncommon. Evidently the route on which the vehicle was plying at the time of check, is not the authorised one for its plying. He could not explain as to why 14 persons are there in the vehicle during a trial run, which is quite uncommon. Evidently the route on which the vehicle was plying at the time of check, is not the authorised one for its plying. When a vehicle is operated on an unauthorised route, it is rare for the operators to ask their crew to issue tickets. The contention that the driver and conductor do not know the difference between a person and passenger, is not relevant in this case, as the contention that the vehicle was taken to Ongole for repairs and that it was on its trial run when it was checked by the Checking Officer could not be proved. All other contentions are of no consequence. Therefore the Regional transport Officer, Ongole, the respondent herein has rightly confirmed the demand and no interference is warranted in this case. " ( 6 ) THE findings recorded by the original authority and the appellate authority, therefore, do not warrant our interference. ( 7 ) THE other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Smt. S. K. Mumtaz Begum v. Regional Transport officer-cum-Licensing Officer, Nellore and others, 1989 (3) ALT 711 (DB), is that so long as stage carriage permit is granted on a route which is determined as town service route by the Road Transport Authority, the authorities under the Taxation Act have no jurisdiction to go into the question whether it is a town service route or not and the mere fact that the vehicle deviated from the permitted route cannot empower the taxation authorities to levy any tax treating the route as a mofussil or any other route. The petitioner cannot derive any support from the above judgment of this Court, particularly having regard to the facts of this case. In the case of smt. Mumtaz Begum (supra), the petitioners were holders of stage carriage permits of town service routes in Nellore Town and in the said writ petition they questioned the validity of the demand notices issued against each of them under the provisions of the motor Vehicles Taxation Act, calling upon them to pay the enhanced tax for the quarter ending 30-9-1988. Mumtaz Begum (supra), the petitioners were holders of stage carriage permits of town service routes in Nellore Town and in the said writ petition they questioned the validity of the demand notices issued against each of them under the provisions of the motor Vehicles Taxation Act, calling upon them to pay the enhanced tax for the quarter ending 30-9-1988. In that case, it was not in controversy that at the time of the check by the transport authorities, the buses were found plying in places within the town itself, but they are not on the permitted route. The defence of the petitioners in that case was that the deviation became absolutely necessary because a bridge was under construction on the permitted route. In that case, the authorities had initiated action under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act also, which was ultimately dropped after accepting the explanation of the petitioners for deviation of the route. In the context of that particular fact situation of the case, the Court held: "thus, so long as stage carriage permit is granted on a route which is determined as a town service route by the Road Transport authority, the authorities under the Taxation act will have to accept that determination as final and levy tax only as town service routes. They have no jurisdiction to go into the question whether it is a town service route or not, so long as the determination under Rule 282 subsists. The mere fact that a vehicle deviated from the permitted route (which is within the town) cannot empower the taxation authorities to levy any tax treating it as a muffasil or other route. It is not in controversy that the routes over which the petitions are holding permits have been determined as town service routes. The taxation authorities will, therefore, have to levy tax only treating them as town service routes so long as the determination is subsisting. ( 8 ) THAT judgment can be distinguished on facts. In the present case, the petitioner was found plying the vehicle as the express stage carriage between Ongole and Podili, totally on a different route. The explanation offered by the petitioner in the present case is totally unacceptable and not convincing. ( 9 ) THE term Express Stage Carriage is defined under Rule 2 (b) of the A. P. Motor vehicle Rules, 1989. It reads. The explanation offered by the petitioner in the present case is totally unacceptable and not convincing. ( 9 ) THE term Express Stage Carriage is defined under Rule 2 (b) of the A. P. Motor vehicle Rules, 1989. It reads. " (i) a carriage plying on city and town routes non-stop or with limited halts as may be prescribed by the transport authority; or (ii) a carriage plying non-stop on muffasil routes of short distances as may be prescribed by the transport authority; or (iii) a carriage plying on muffasil routes with limited halts, as may be prescribed by the transport authority. " ( 10 ) IN the instant case, it is the specific case of the respondent authorities that the vehicle was found plying as non-stop service, and therefore, it answers the definition of express stage carriage. The contention of the respondent authorities is well founded. If that is so, the petitioner is liable to pay the tax at the rate of Rs. 1,185/ -. ( 11 ) IN that view of the matter, the impugned demand cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. No ground is made out for interference with the impugned demand notice. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.