L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the registered owner of a heavy goods vehicle bearing No. AP04t4334. The vehicle had permit valid up to 22-12-2000 and fitness certificate upto 1-2-2001. Tax was paid for the quarter ending with 31-12-2000. Petitioner contends that the vehicle as well as the records were seized by the Railway police on 7-9-2000 in connection with an accident. According to him, the vehicle was returned on 25-6-2001 and the records were returned on 27-4-2003. In view of these developments, petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated 30-5-2003 informing the respondent that the vehicle was not put to use and that it is not liable to be levied tax from 1-1-2001 onwards. The respondent issued Memo dated 13-6-2003 informing the petitioner that since he did not give the intimation of stoppage of plying of the vehicle before the commencement of the next quarter, his request cannot be acceded to and that he is liable to pay the tax in view of Section 12 (A) of the a. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules. The petitioner challenges the said memo. ( 2 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to intimate the stoppage of the vehicle before the commencement of next term viz. , 1-1-2001. It is stated that on his failure to do so, rule 12 (A) operated and the petitioner is deemed to have operated the vehicle. On this ground, it is contended that the petitioner was liable to pay the tax for the entire period. ( 3 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Transport. ( 4 ) THE fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, that he had permit valid up to 22-12-2000, fitness certificate upto 1-2-2001 and paid the tax for the quarter ending for 31-12-2000 are matters of record. A perusal of the FIR issued consequent upon the accident that took place on 6-11-2000, discloses that the vehicle was involved in an accident. In this writ petition we are concerned with the liability of the petitioner to pay the tax for the quarters subsequent to 1-1-2001. ( 5 ) RULE 12 (A) of the Motor Vehicles taxation Rules deals with the circumstances under which the owner of the vehicle can be. In this writ petition we are concerned with the liability of the petitioner to pay the tax for the quarters subsequent to 1-1-2001. ( 5 ) RULE 12 (A) of the Motor Vehicles taxation Rules deals with the circumstances under which the owner of the vehicle can be. exempted from the liability to pay the tax on reporting stoppage. It is beneficial to extract the Rule as a whole. "12-A: Liability for payment of tax in respect of motor vehicles kept for use:for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act, a motor vehicle shall be deemed to be kept for use and is liable to tax unless the registered owner or the person having possession or control of the motor vehicle intimates in writing to the Licensing Officer before the commencement of the quarter for which tax is due that the motor vehicle shall not be used after expiry of the period for which tax has already been paid. The Licensing Officer shall, on receipt of the intimation, acknowledge its receipt: provided that in the case of non-transport vehicles, if the owner of the vehicle fails to submit the stoppage report within the period specified above but subsequently gives an affidavit with full details to the effect that the vehicle was not in existence or that it was already disposed of to another person and that he is no more in possession of it, or that the tax in respect of the vehicle was paid elsewhere in the same State or in some other state and as such he is not liable for payment of tax in the jurisdiction of that Licensing officer or proves to the satisfaction of the licensing Officer that the vehicle has not been used, it may be deemed that the vehicle has not been kept for use; provided further that nothing in this rule shall apply in respect of vehicles for which life time or lumpsum tax is prescribed; provided further that in the case of transport vehicle, if the vehicle is not covered by a valid fitness certificate or a valid permit, it may be deemed that the vehicle is not kept for use as a transport vehicle and is not taxable as such. " ( 6 ) A perusal of the same discloses that it provides for two presumptions to be drawn. " ( 6 ) A perusal of the same discloses that it provides for two presumptions to be drawn. The first presumption is to the effect that if the registered owner of the vehicle fails to intimate the stoppage of use of the vehicle before the commencement of next quarter, the vehicle shall be deemed to have been kept for use. Thereby, the owner becomes liable to pay tax. The second presumption is that where the vehicle is not covered by a valid fitness certificate or a valid permit, it shall be deemed that the vehicle is not kept for use. The reason for this presumption is that unless a vehicle is covered by a valid permit and fitness certificate, the same is not supposed to be operated and thereby not liable for any taxation. ( 7 ) IT is true that the petitioner did not intimate the stoppage of the vehicle before the commencement of next term viz. , 1-1-2001. The presumption provided for, in the first proviso of the rule gets attracted in such cases. It is however, subject to another presumption provided for under third proviso to the rule. For this proviso to operate, there should exist a fact viz. , the vehicle does not possess valid permit and valid fitness certificate. It has come on record that the permit of the vehicle of the petitioner was valid till 22-12-2000 and its fitness certificate was expired by 1-2-2001. Hence the third proviso gets attracted and the vehicle becomes not taxable. ( 8 ) THE respondents rely upon the circular dated 7-10-2002 issued by the transport Commissioner. This is to the effect that though the presumption under the third proviso exempts the vehicle from the tax on account of non-existence of valid permit and fitness certificate, the concerned licensing Officer should extend the benefit only where it is clearly established that the vehicle was actually stopped. Whatever be the circumstances under which the circular came to be issued, it cannot have any effect of watering down the operation of, or overriding the third proviso referred to above. Since it has emerged that the vehicle did not possess the valid permit beyond 22-12-2000 and valid fitness certificate beyond 1-2-2002, the vehicle becomes non-taxable. ( 9 ) THE impugned memo is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.