S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Deputy commissioner for Transport, Bangalore Division, dated 30-12-2003 in appeal No. TAX 50 of 2002, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the first respondent calling upon him to pay the tax and penalty from 1-1-1999 to 30-9-2001 in a total sum of Rs. 6,70,320/- was rejected. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows.- ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a transport operator and is a registered owner of the Motor Vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 01 5044 registered in the office of the first respondent. On 27-2-1999, she intimated the non-use of the vehicle in Form 30 stating therein that the Vehicle in question has been stopped for major repairs and that the said vehicle would be garaged at Southern Travels, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad (A. P. ). The said intimation of non-use was provisionally accepted with effect from 1-3-1999. The respondent has deputed Senior Inspector of Motor vehicles along with one Inspector to go over to Hyderabad and cause non-use inspection. The Inspectors of Motor Vehicles had gone to hyderabad on 19-7-2001 visited the declared place of garage and found that the vehicle in question was not parked there. Accordingly, they have submitted a report to the respondent 1. On the basis of the said report, the first respondent has issued a show-cause notice dated 24-7-2001 to the petitioner as to why action should not be taken to revoke provisional acceptance of non-use intimation. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed her objections to the show-cause notice stating that she has scrapped the vehicle and sold it to a scrap dealer on 23-8-1999 and that the vehicle in question is not in existence. It is further stated that the vehicle in question was not only scrapped but also it was kept out of State of Karnataka as such the first respondent has no jurisdiction to demand the tax. Having not satisfied with the reply offered by the petitioner and also having removed the vehicle from the declared place of garage without permission of the registering authority and as the petitioner has contravened the conditions of notification, the first respondent revoked the intimation of non-use and called upon the petitioner to pay tax as per the notice dated 10-12-2001. Having not satisfied with the reply offered by the petitioner and also having removed the vehicle from the declared place of garage without permission of the registering authority and as the petitioner has contravened the conditions of notification, the first respondent revoked the intimation of non-use and called upon the petitioner to pay tax as per the notice dated 10-12-2001. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said demand, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent by its judgment dated 5-3-2003 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner challenged the said order of the second respondent in this Court in W. P. No. 15887 of 2003. This Court by its order dated 8-10-2003 remanded the matter to the second respondent for its disposal in terms of the directions contained in the said order. After the remand, the second respondent has passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal. The respondents have filed their statement of objections justifying the demand of tax. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned government Pleader for the respondents. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the acceptance of the non-use of the vehicle, the vehicle in question was dismantled. Therefore, the question of levy of tax does not arise. Secondly, it is contended that since the vehicle in question was placed outside the State of Karnataka, the first respondent has no extra territorial jurisdiction, and that the vehicle is not exigible to tax. It is further submitted that the authorities below have not arrived at a finding of fact that the vehicle was kept in Karnataka. There is no enquiry by the authorities below with regard to scrapping of the vehicle in question. It is further submitted that the authorities below have not arrived at a finding of fact that the vehicle was kept in Karnataka. There is no enquiry by the authorities below with regard to scrapping of the vehicle in question. He has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of A. S. Vinayaka Bhat v State of Karnataka; in the case of State of mysore v Krishnarao Manjrekar; in the case of Annasaheb ramachandra Patil v Ramachandra Sataba Maniwerekar (deceased) by l. Rs; in the case of V. Narayana Reddy v Commissioner for Transport in Mysore and Another; in the case of Kulusumbi v Secretary, State transport Authority, Bangalore; in the case of P. S. Murugaiah mudaliar v The Deputy Commissioner for Transport and Another; and v. Surendran v The Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore and others , In re M/s. M. G. Automobiles and Susheelamma v State of karnataka and Others. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that non-use intimation was submitted by the petitioner in terms of the notification No. HD 95 TMT 77 (11), dated 11-9-1990 issued in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. When the inspectors of the respondents visited the place of stoppage as intimated by the petitioner, the vehicle was not available. Therefore, they have issued show-cause notice for withdrawal of the provisional acceptance of non-use intimation as the petitioner has violated the conditions of the notification referred to above. It is further submitted that the non-use intimation is dated 27-2-1999. When the Inspectors attached to the first respondent visited the spot on 23-7-2001, the vehicle was not found there. Therefore, show-cause notice was issued on 24-7-2001. In the reply to the show-cause notice, it is stated that the vehicle was scrapped on 23-8-1999. They have not intimated the scrapping of the said vehicle within 14 days as required under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Secondly, she has not produced any material either before the respondents or before this Court to show that the vehicle in question was garaged at Hyderabad or that the vehicle was sold to a scrap dealer on 23-8-1999. Since, she has violated the conditions of the notification referred to above, she is not entitled for any tax exemption. Secondly, she has not produced any material either before the respondents or before this Court to show that the vehicle in question was garaged at Hyderabad or that the vehicle was sold to a scrap dealer on 23-8-1999. Since, she has violated the conditions of the notification referred to above, she is not entitled for any tax exemption. Learned government Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of a Division bench of this Court in the case of Jerome Crasta v Regional Transport officer, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore and Others and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v K. Gopalakrishna Shenoy and Others. Learned Government Pleader has also produced the original records. ( 9 ) I have carefully considered the arguments made at the Bar, perused the records and the materials placed on record. ( 10 ) PERUSAL of the records shows that the petitioner has filed the non- use intimation on 27-2-1999. Along with the said application, she has produced the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question. An application was also filed on the same day for issuance of duplicate Tax card on the ground that the original is lost. The Registration Certificate is dated 7-4-1994 and the vehicle in question was a new vehicle. On 1-3-1999, the intimation of non-use was provisionally accepted. The report dated 19-7-2001 states that the vehicle in question was not at the place as per the non-use intimation. ( 11 ) SECTION 16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') empowers the State Government to issue notification exempting or reducing prospectively or retrospectively the tax payable in respect of any class of motor vehicles or motor vehicles not used on the roads. It also empowers the State Government by notification to reduce the rate of tax payable in respect of any class of motor vehicles plying on route on routes specified in the notification, if in its opinion, it is necessary in the public interest so to do. The State government has issued a notification in accordance with the said section in No. HD 95 TMT 77 (11), dated 11-9-1980 exempting the motor vehicles registered under the State of Karnataka and not intended to be used on the roads from payment of tax, subject to certain conditions. The notification is as under: government OF KARNATAKA no. The State government has issued a notification in accordance with the said section in No. HD 95 TMT 77 (11), dated 11-9-1980 exempting the motor vehicles registered under the State of Karnataka and not intended to be used on the roads from payment of tax, subject to certain conditions. The notification is as under: government OF KARNATAKA no. HD 95 TMT 77 (11) Karnataka Government Secretariat, vidhana Soudha, bangalore, dated 11th September, 1980 notification in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1957) and in supersession of Notification No. HD 70 MVT 58, dated 13th march, 1959, the Government of Karnataka being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest so to do hereby exempt the motor vehicles registered in the State of Karnataka and not intended to be used on roads from the payment of tax under the said Act for the period of one full quarter, half-year, as the case may be, during which such vehicles are not intended to be used on roads, subject to the following conditions, namely.- (1) The non-use of the motor vehicle should be intimated before the commencement of the quarter, half-year, or year, as the case may be, in writing in Form 30 of Rule 34-A of the Karnataka motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957. (2) The registration certificate, taxation card and permit, if any, in respect of the motor vehicle or where such documents are seized or retained by any authority, a certificate obtained from the concerned Authority for such a seizure or retention of the documents, should be surrendered to the Regional Transport authority concerned, on or before the first day of the commencement of the quarter, half-year or year, as the case may be. In the case of a motor vehicle covered by a hypothecation of hire-purchase agreement, if the motor vehicle is seized by the financier and the document relating to such motor vehicle are not with him, the non-use shall be intimated to the concerned regional Transport Officer. (3) The motor vehicle shall not be removed during the period of exemption from the place where the motor vehicle is kept without the prior permission of the Regional Transport Officer concerned. (3) The motor vehicle shall not be removed during the period of exemption from the place where the motor vehicle is kept without the prior permission of the Regional Transport Officer concerned. (4) The Regional Transport Officer or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall have the power to inspect the place where the motor vehicle in kept to satisfy himself regarding the non-use of such motor vehicle. (5) If on such inspection, the motor vehicle is not found at the place where it is intimated to have been kept such motor vehicle shall not be entitled to the exemption from payment of tax. (6) At the time of return of documents to the registered owner, after the expiry of the period of such non-use of the motor vehicle, the Regional Transport Officer shall cause an entry to be made in the taxation card the non-use of the motor vehicle specifying therein the period during which the motor vehicle was under non-use. This notification shall come into force with effect from 12th september, 1980. By Order and in the name of the governor of Karnataka sd/- (H. B. Ramaswamaiah) under Secretary to Government, home Department. ( 12 ) RULE 34-A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules'), provides the procedure for intimation of the non-use of the vehicles. It states that the intimation of non-use of motor vehicles should be made in Form 30. The notification referred above makes it clear that in order to claim exemption from payment of tax the motor vehicle to which Form 30 was filed to the Competent Authority shall not be removed during the period of exemption from the place where the motor vehicle is kept without prior permission of the Regional transport Authority concerned. It also empowers the Competent authority or the officer empowered by him to inspect the place where the motor vehicle is kept to satisfy himself regarding the non-use of such motor vehicle and if on such inspection, the motor vehicle is not found at the place where it is intimated to have been kept such motor vehicle was not entitled to exemption from payment of tax. ( 13 ) A Division Bench of this Court in Jerome Crasta's case, while considering a similar notification has held that exemption ceases to apply the moment the vehicle is removed from the garage. ( 13 ) A Division Bench of this Court in Jerome Crasta's case, while considering a similar notification has held that exemption ceases to apply the moment the vehicle is removed from the garage. That was a case where the vehicle was intercepted when the period of exemption was subsisting. The Division Bench has held as follows: "however, having regard to paragraph 3 it would be clear that the exemption ceases to apply the moment the vehicle is removed from the garage. Therefore, where the vehicle was intercepted on road it obviously ceases to get the benefit of exemption. The demand is perfectly valid. This view of ours is supported by the ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v K. Gopalakrishna Shenoy, AIR 1981 SC 1911. As regards the seizure of the vehicle, that cannot be challenged in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed". ( 14 ) IN K. Gopalakrishna Shenoy's case, the Hqn'ble Supreme Court has held that where the registration certificate of the motor vehicle is current, the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Act are applicable. In the said decision, it is held as follows: "section 7 read with the relevant rules. . . . . The scheme of taxation Act is such that the tax due on a motor vehicle has got to be paid in terms of Section 3 at the prescribed rate and in advance and the liability to pay tax continues as long as the certificate of registration is current but if it so happens that in spite of the certificate of Registration being current, the vehicle had not actually been put to use for the whole of the period or a continuous part thereof, not being less than one calendar month, the person paying the tax should apply to the Prescribed Authority and obtain a refund of the tax for the appropriate period after satisfying the Authorities about the truth and genuineness of his claim. Sections 3 and 4 are absolute in their terms and the liability to pay the tax in advance is not dependant upon the vehicle being covered by a certificate of Fitness or not. Sections 3 and 4 are absolute in their terms and the liability to pay the tax in advance is not dependant upon the vehicle being covered by a certificate of Fitness or not. Even if the vehicle was not in a road worthy condition and could not be put to use on the roads without the necessary repairs being carried out, the owner or person having possession or control of a vehicle is enjoined to pay the tax on the vehicle and then seek a refund. . . . ". It is further held as follows: ". . . . . The principle underlying the Taxation Act is that every motor vehicle issued a certificate of Registration is to be deemed a potential user of the roads all through the time the Certificate of registration is current and therefore liable to pay tax under section 3 (1) read with Section 4. If, however, the vehicle had not made use of the roads because it could not be put on the roads due to repairs, even though the Certificate of Registration was current, the owner or person concerned has to seek for and obtain refund of the tax paid in advance after satisfying the Authorities about the truth of his claim. It is not for the Transport Authorities to justify the demand for tax by proving that the vehicle is in a fit condition and can be put to use on the roads or that it had plied on the roads without payment of tax. It would be absolutely impossible for the State to keep monitoring all the vehicles and prove that each and every registered vehicle is in a fit condition and would be making use of the roads and is therefore liable to pay the tax. For that reason, the State has made the payment of tax compulsory on every registered vehicle and that too in advance and has at the same time provided for the grant of refund of tax whenever the person paying the tax has not made use of the roads by plying the vehicle and substantiates his claim, by proper proof. For that reason, the State has made the payment of tax compulsory on every registered vehicle and that too in advance and has at the same time provided for the grant of refund of tax whenever the person paying the tax has not made use of the roads by plying the vehicle and substantiates his claim, by proper proof. Any view to the contrary would defeat the purpose and intent of the Taxation Act and would also afford scope and opportunity for some of the persons liable to pay the tax to ply the vehicle unlawfully without payment of tax and later on justify their non-payment by setting up a plea that the vehicle was in repair for a continuous period of over a month or the whole of a quarter, half-year or year as they choose to claim". ( 15 ) IN the present case, the non-use intimation was provisionally accepted 1-3-1999. When the Competent Authorities visited the place of stoppage of the vehicle in exercise of powers under Clause 4 of the notification referred to above, the vehicle was not found at the garage. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 24-7-2001 was issued for withdrawal of exemption. In reply to the show-cause notice, it is stated that the vehicle was old and that it was dismantled and sold to a scrap merchant on 23-8-1999 and that the vehicle is not in existence. Secondly, it is contended that since the vehicle in question is kept outside the State and is not exigible to tax as the charging provision cannot have extra-territorial operation. No material is produced to show that the vehicle was garaged at Hyderabad or that it was scrapped and sold on 23-8-1999. An enquiry regarding scrapping of the vehicle can be made if the petitioner had produced some material justifying the said claim. Clause 6 of the notification referred above states that at the time of return of documents to the registered owner, after the expiry of the period of non-use of the motor vehicle, the RTA shall cause an entry in the taxation card the period of non-use of the motor vehicle. Therefore, the owner of such motor vehicle has to take return of the documents from the RTO concerned after the expiry of non-use period. Petitioner has failed to take back the documents in terms of Clause 6 of the notification. Therefore, the owner of such motor vehicle has to take return of the documents from the RTO concerned after the expiry of non-use period. Petitioner has failed to take back the documents in terms of Clause 6 of the notification. Sub-section (1) of Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, mandates the owner of a vehicle to report the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or the place of business or where the vehicle is normally kept as the case may be within 14 days, if the vehicle is destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of use. No explanation is forthcoming for not informing the Authorities concerned about the scrapping of the vehicle till 4-12-2001. The vehicle in question does not seem to be an old vehicle. The stand of the petitioner appears to be an after thought. It is to be noticed here that in the earlier Writ Petition No. 15887 of 2003, the point canvassed by the petitioner was that the vehicle in question was placed outside the State of Karnataka. The decision in Murugaiah Mudaliar's case, was pressed into service to contend that the authorities under the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act have no extra-territorial jurisdiction to levy the tax. This Court by the order dated 8-10-2003, remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent to consider the said aspect of the matter in the light of the aforesaid decision. Now the petitioner is urging a different contention that the vehicle in question is not in existence since 23-8-1999. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the vehicle in question was not found at the place where it is intimated to have been kept at the time of inspection. Thus, there is a clear violation of the conditions of the exemption notification referred above. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for exemption from payment of tax. ( 16 ) AT this stage, relying on the decision of this Court in Vinayaka bhat's case, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the obligation conferred on the owner of the vehicle as per Section 55 of the m. V. Act is not relevant for the purpose of levy of tax under the Act. In vinayaka Bhat's case, the petitioner was prosecuted for not paying the annual tax. The learned Magistrate convicted him of the offences punishable under Section 12 (1) of the Act. In vinayaka Bhat's case, the petitioner was prosecuted for not paying the annual tax. The learned Magistrate convicted him of the offences punishable under Section 12 (1) of the Act. The defence taken in the said case was that the vehicle in question was very old and it was scrapped. The Court has observed that the petitioner should be vigilant in reporting the condition of the vehicle to the authorities concerned and should have got the registration cancelled. In this background, the Court has held that Section 34 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is not relevant. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. This is a case of violation of the terms of the notification granting exemption and not a case of prosecution for non-payment of tax. In Amarsaheb's case, it is held that the law made by the State Legislature is applicable to the limits of the State only. Similar view is taken in Murugesh mudaliar's case. The said decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case, as the stand of the petitioner is that the vehicle in question was not in existence since 23-8-1999. ( 17 ) IN Narayan Reddy's case, it is held that the legal fiction provided under Section 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 that the transport vehicle in respect of which fitness certificate has been expired and has not been renewed shall not be deemed to be validly registered, is only for the purpose of Section 22 of that Act and cannot be extended to the mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. That was because of the language employed in Section 38 of the Act. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. In Kulusumbi's case, this Court has held that the judgment of the High Court is meant to be obeyed in the State of karnataka by all the authorities. ( 18 ) IN Surendran's case, this Court has directed an enquiry as to whether the vehicle was scrapped as contended therein. Similarly, in m. G. Automobiles case, also a similar order was passed. In the present case, there is absolutely no material produced before this Court to show that the vehicle was placed in the garage at Hyderabad or that it was scrapped on 23-8-1999. Similarly, in m. G. Automobiles case, also a similar order was passed. In the present case, there is absolutely no material produced before this Court to show that the vehicle was placed in the garage at Hyderabad or that it was scrapped on 23-8-1999. Such a stand was taken only after the issue of show-cause notice in the year 2001. ( 19 ) I am of the view that this is not a fit case for interference under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .