MOTILAL B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing Registration No. AP13/v/7925. Petitioner s vehicle was engaged by m/s. Lohiya Transport Company, Hyderabad to carry its goods to Nizamabad. When the loaded lorry was about to leave for nizamabad, two passengers requested the driver to accommodate them in the lorry, as they want to go to Nizamabad for some urgent work. Accordingly, the two passengers were accommodated by the driver in the lorry. On 18-1-2002 the lorry loaded with kirana (grocery) goods was proceeding to Nizamabad. When it reached bicanur Mandal, these two persons who boarded the lorry, threatened the driver and cleaner with dire consequences and forced them to divert it to a nearby forest area and threw them out from the said vehicle. However, the driver of the lorry could manage to go to Ramayampet Police Station on the next day i. e. , 19-1-2002 and lodged a complaint, which was registered as Cr. No. 3 of 2002. ( 2 ) IT is stated the whereabouts of lorry could not be traced, however petitioner was made known about the tracing of the lorry on 23-1-2003 in the State of Maharashtra. Thereafter, the vehicle was brought to ramayampet Police Station and the same was produced before the Judicial First Class magistrate, Medak on 15-4-2003. When the petitioner approached the learned magistrate seeking release, the learned magistrate through order, dated 16-7-2003 directed for release of the said lorry and was handed over to the petitioner on 18-7-2003. ( 3 ) THE petitioner having noticed that the vehicle was not in a good condition, got it repaired. Thereafter, he approached the 2nd respondent on 6-10-2003 and requested him to accept the tax for the quarter ending with 31-12-2003 enabling him to use the vehicle and also sought exemption from payment of tax for the earlier quarters, during which period the vehicle was under stoppage. However, the 2nd respondent refused to receive the tax for the quarter ending 31-12-2003 and issued the impugned notice, dated 15-11-2003 calling upon the petitioner to pay tax and penalty of Rs. 22,120. 00. Questioning the said show cause notice, petitioner filed the present writ petition. However, the 2nd respondent refused to receive the tax for the quarter ending 31-12-2003 and issued the impugned notice, dated 15-11-2003 calling upon the petitioner to pay tax and penalty of Rs. 22,120. 00. Questioning the said show cause notice, petitioner filed the present writ petition. ( 4 ) A detailed counter has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, contending that the petitioner having not intimated the department about the stoppage of the vehicle as required under Rule 12-A of A. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, cannot seek exemption from payment of tax for the period from 1-1-2002 to 30-3-2003. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special government Pleader for Taxes appearing on behalf of the respondents. ( 6 ) FROM the narration of facts, it would appear the vehicle was not plied by the petitioner from 19-1-2002 onwards till the vehicle was traced and released to the petitioner on 18-7-2003 by an order of the judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak. Petitioner thereafter made efforts to get the vehicle repaired for using it and also made efforts to pay tax for the quarter ending with 31-12-2003. When things were brought to the notice of the appropriate authority, if not from the legal point of view, at least from commonsense point of view, respondents should have accepted the version of the petitioner and should have granted exemption to the petitioner from payment of tax for the period from 1-4-2002 to 30-9-2003, as the respondents have not disputed the facts in the counter filed by them. The only ground averred is, since the petitioner failed to intimate about the stoppage of the vehicle, exemption from payment of tax cannot be granted. We think, having regard to the incident, which took place on 18-1-2002, the petitioner was more worried about knowing the whereabouts of his vehicle rather than sending a stoppage report. The respondents were rather more zealous to give effect to the rules rather than appreciating the circumstances in which the petitioner is placed. ( 7 ) WE are reminded an often quoted incident wherein an old lady and her pet dog were involved. On one late evening in the suburbs of London city about 60 to 65 k. ms. away from London, an old lady aged 65 years was waiting to catch a bus to go to london. ( 7 ) WE are reminded an often quoted incident wherein an old lady and her pet dog were involved. On one late evening in the suburbs of London city about 60 to 65 k. ms. away from London, an old lady aged 65 years was waiting to catch a bus to go to london. She had a pet dog with her. It so happened, that evening was said to be the chilliest evening and it was about 8. 30 p. m. and the bus she was to catch was the last bus to go to London. If she misses the bus, either she would not reach London or she would be able to go back to place from which she came. When the bus arrived, she was about to board the bus along with her pet dog. The conductor, noticing the old lady trying to board the bus along with the pet dog objected her entry on the ground that entry of pet dogs is prohibited. When the old lady made an attempt to convince the conductor to permit her to board the bus along with her pet dog, the conductor was vehement and was trying to draw her attention to the board displayed in the bus, which says, "no entry for pet dogs into the bus. " The old lady tried her best to convince the conductor and pleaded that she is an old lady and that is the last bus and that she cannot leave her pet dog and if she does so, the pet dog would die and requested the conductor to permit her along with her pet dog to board the bus. The conversation between the two attracted the attention of other passengers, who tried to pacify the conductor pleading that if the old lady is not permitted to enter the bus, she has to leave the pet dog, which may die as a result of cold, and if the old lady is not permitted to board the bus along with the pet dog she will not be in a position to withstand the cold, resulting in old lady also suffering in the chilled wind. As the conductor became adamant, a passenger advised the conductor not to read the words and letters, but shall also appreciate the situation in which the old lady is placed. As the conductor became adamant, a passenger advised the conductor not to read the words and letters, but shall also appreciate the situation in which the old lady is placed. The other passengers also supported the old lady and stated that they have no objection if the old lady boards the bus along with her pet dog. Probably, when all the passengers persuaded the conductor, he had no other go than to permit the old lady to board the bus along with her pet dog. From the narration of the incident, what is learnt is "wisdom" shall prevail in a given situation. Though the respondents are justified in stating that as provided under the scheme of the Act, petitioner should have informed about the stoppage of the vehicle, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents could not have insisted payment of tax for all this period. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner s vehicle was stolen on 18-1-2002. There is also no dispute that a case was registered by the appropriate police authorities in that regard. Ultimately, petitioner s vehicle was traced in the State of Maharashtra and the same was brought to Ramayampet in April, 2003 and was produced before the Judicial first Class Magistrate on 16-7-2003 and on an application filed by the petitioner, the magistrate ordered for release of the vehicle. When these factors were brought to the notice of the respondents, in our considered view, the respondents ought not to have held that the petitioner is not entitled for exemption from payment of tax for the period, during which the vehicle was stolen and under stoppage. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned demand notice issued by the respondents. However, it is made clear that since the petitioner has been plying the vehicle upto 18-1-2002, he cannot escape from the liability of paying tax for the quarter from 1-1-2002 to 31-3-2002 and shall pay the same. On such payment being made, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to ply the vehicle. No costs.