JUDGMENT Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J. 1. The petitioners has challenged the order dated 23.9.1997 passed accepted Nos. 4 of 1997 and 5 of 1997 by which the appeals were partly accepted by exempting payment of tax for vehicles bearing registration No. BPS 8123 and BPH 8220 for six months against the claim of the petitioner for three years from 1.5.1993 to 31.3.1996. The petitioners has also challenged the orders dated 18.7.1996 passed in Case Nos. 11 of 1996 and 13 of 1996, whereby the exemption claimed was rejected for the entire period. 2. Mr. Saurav Arun, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner surrendered eleven vehicles including the said vehicles in the months of March and April, 1993 which was accepted by the District Transport Officer, Jamshedpur vide his Letter No. 1035 dated 14.5.1993 (Annexure 1), but subsequently the said acceptance of surrender was withdrawn on the purported ground that in a surprise checking done some time in the year 1995, the said vehicles were not found parked in the parking place and, therefore, a presumption was drawn that they were plying on the road during the period in question. He further submitted that no such inspection report was served on the petitioner and the same was never produced before the authority concerned who passed by the aforesaid orders. He submitted that even the date of such inspection has not been disclosed. In these circumstance, he submitted that no action can be taken against the petitioner on the basis of such inspection. He further submitted that when the impugned action was taken, the petitioner moved the higher authorities and an inspection was made on the orders of the State Transport Commissioner when the vehicles were found at the parking place on 3.4.1996. 3. By order dated 5.5.2006, the State Counsel was directed to file an affidavit annexing a copy of the said inspection report dated 3.4.1996 of the District Transport Officer, Jamshedpur and also a copy of the report of the said surprise checking made by the Special Checking Squad, but inspite of several opportunities given by this Court, no such affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. On 6.4.2007, this Court said that if the said reports were not produced, adverse inference will be drawn, if required. 4. Mr. On 6.4.2007, this Court said that if the said reports were not produced, adverse inference will be drawn, if required. 4. Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the Bihar & Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930, (for short "the Old Act") and the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 (for short "the New Act") which came into effect from April, 1994, both are applicable in the present case as the period involved was from 1.5.1993 to 31.3.1996. He submitted that as per proviso to Section 17 of the New Act, the undertaking not to ply vehicle on surrender, was valid for a period exceeding six months at a time and, therefore, the petitioner was required to file a fresh undertakings after expiry of every six months which he has not done. Mr. Saurav Arun in reply submitted that as the surrender was done prior to coming into force of the new Act, the Old Act was applicable. 5. It appears that when the said vehicles were surrendered, they were found parked in the garage of the petitioner near Chandil Golchakkar. The authorities while passing the impugned orders, observed that the said vehicles were surrendered for repairing which might take about six months, but the petitioner informed the authorities after three years. The petitioners explanation that due to financial trouble, vehicles could not be repaired early was not accepted on the ground that the petitioner Company which could surrender eleven vehicles cannot be heard to say their due to financial trouble, the vehicles could not be repaired for three years. The authority has further observed that whether the vehicles were plying or not were within the special knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was required to satisfy the authority that the vehicles do not ply on the road during the said period of three years. The appellate authority refused to accept the evidences offered by the petitioner in view of Rule 19(4) of the new Rules, though it observed that Section 9A of the Old Act is applicable in this case. 6. In my opinion, as the respondents could not produce the purported inspection report of the Special Checking Squad, the same could not be made the basis to refuse exemption. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. However, no costs.