Judgment :- (PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent made in proceedings in D.O.Lr.No.B2/10911/97 dated 13.8.1998 and quash the same.) The petitioner/State Transport Corporation, fully owned Government Company, is putting in issue the order dated 13.8.1998 of the respondent directing the petitioner to pay the difference in tax of Rs.21,748/- for the period from 30.4.1994 to 30.03.1995 of a sum of Rs.21,748/- with 100% penalty of an equal sum on the premise that during the said period, the petitioner was plying his bus from Tiruvarur to Kalanivasal on a temporary permit. The temporary permit was issued to the petitioner under Section 87 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and such temporary permit continued in favour of the petitioner for nearly two years. Such continuous issuance of temporary permit has caused loss to the exchequer of the Government, as the temporary permit holder has to pay only ¾ th tax from the regular permit holder. Hence, on an objection raised by the Accountant General, the present impugned notice is issued. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Corporation submitted that it is of course, true that during the relevant period, the petitioner, was running the spare bus only on a temporary permit. But, it is not the fault of the petitioner. Though the petitioner/Corporation applied to the respondent for a pucca permit, the respondent has not granted the same. Hence the petitioner is constrained to obtain the temporary permit and ply the buses in the route, periodically getting it extended. It is not the intention of the State owned Petitioner corporation to avoid the tax payable to the Government. What is legally payable on temporary permit has been paid by the petitioner. Hence, neither the demand nor the imposition of penalty is legally sustainable. 2. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner/Corporation, though a Government corporation, is only operating in the eye of law as that of a corporation, which is owned by private operators. The petitioner cannot hold exclusive privilege for it. All the Statutory provisions are equally applicable to the petitioner/Corporation also when the provisions provide for an outer period, for which, temporary permit can be used in violation or infringement of the same. 3. The petitioner cannot hold exclusive privilege for it. All the Statutory provisions are equally applicable to the petitioner/Corporation also when the provisions provide for an outer period, for which, temporary permit can be used in violation or infringement of the same. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 4. Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for temporary permits as per the provisions of the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down under Section 80, of the Act, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period, which shall not in any case exceed four months to authorise, the use the transport vehicle temporarily- (a) For the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings or (b) for the purposes of a seasonal business or (c) to meet a particular temporary need or (d) pending decision on an application for the renewal to permit and may attach to any such permit condition as it may think fit. Thus the section provides an outer limit of four months and also provides for the occasion, for which the temporary permit can be issued. 5. Here is a case in which the petitioner corporation applied for a pucca permit. Pending consideration of the pucca permit, it applied for a temporary permit and obtained the same. Admittedly, the temporary permit holder pays only ¾ th of the tax and thereby enjoys 25% as concession. The concession has been granted taking into consideration the limited validity for which the temporary permit was issued. However, in this case, the Corporation had periodically obtained temporary permit and had plied the vehicle, as if it is a pucca permit holder, for more than two years. In such circumstances, the concession made available to the temporary permit holder cannot be made available to the petitioner Corporation and the respondent is right in claiming the difference of tax. 6. With regard to penalty, of course, there is no reference about the Statutory provisions, which empowers the respondent to impose penalty and the only provision available is Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There are various slab rates for non payment of tax within a period fixed under the Statute. 6. With regard to penalty, of course, there is no reference about the Statutory provisions, which empowers the respondent to impose penalty and the only provision available is Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There are various slab rates for non payment of tax within a period fixed under the Statute. It is not as though no tax was paid in this case. But, a lower rate of tax is paid, which has also been accepted by the respondent authorities all along but for the Accountant General’s objections. Hence, this Court is of the view that the conduct of the petitioner in not paying the tax as a pucca permit holder, would not amount to evasion of tax. The respondent has also admitted in their counter that it was not possible for the respondent to grant pucca permit without records and other things and that was the reason for the delay. 7. Having regard to the above submissions and taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that imposing of 100% penalty is unwarranted and it would meet the ends of justice if 50% of the penalty is imposed. Hence, the order impugned in the writ petition dated 13.8.1998 is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall pay the difference of tax of Rs.21,748/- with penalty of 25% thereon. 8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the writ petition 50% of the total demand has been paid and it is needless to state that the respondent would adjust the same in the amount that it is be paid by the petitioner. 9. With this modification, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.