JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - The Petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle, which is a TATA Tipper bearing registration No. OR-09-B-9066, having purchased the same from M/s. Ores India Private Limited at Chainbasa, Jharkhand. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that M/s. Ores India Pvt. Ltd. which has its office at Barbil in the State of Orissa purchased the aforesaid vehicle and registered the same at Keonjhar. The said company paid its road tax regularly. The said vehicle was taken to Chainbasa of Jharkhand State in the month of September, 2003 for which No Objection Certificate was issued by the Taxing Officer to the Taxing Officer at Chainbasa. Thereafter, the Petitioner states that it paid road tax from October, 2003 to June, 2008 at Chainbasa as tax till September 2003 was paid at Keonjhar to the Opp. Party No. 1. In the month of August, 2008, the Petitioner purchased the said vehicle and transfer of the vehicle was allowed by the District Transport Officer, Singhbhum, Chainbasa on 4.6.2008. The Petitioner brought the vehicle to Orissa on the basis of the No Objection Certificate issued to the R.T.O., Rourkela on 10.6.2008 and the R.T.O., Rourkela accordingly endorsed the receipt of the said document on 28.8.2008 and received the tax for July, 2008 to September, 2008. In support of such payment of tax at R.T.O., Rourkela, the Petitioner has annexed Annexure-1 which is the extract of the registration certificate showing payment of tax from July, 2008 to September, 2008. On 6.8.2008, when the vehicle was plying, the same was seized by the Traffic Inspector, O.M.V.D., Keonjhar on the allegation that the driver of the vehicle failed to produce the documents relating to registration certificate, fitness and tax particulars. The Petitioner alleges that his driver disclosed before the said Taxing Officer that the documents are available with the R.T.O., Rourkela, which were given to him for endorsement and the same can only be produced after return. However, according to the Petitioner, the Traffic Inspector - Opp. Party No. 5 seized the vehicle without issuing a seizure list and without mentioning the fact of seizure of the vehicle in the vehicle checking report dated 6.8.2008, detained the vehicle forcibly in the concerned police station. The Petitioner claims to have approached the Taxing Officer, Rourkela thereafter, for return of the documents, which were returned to the Petitioner on 28.8.2008. The Petitioner claims to have approached the Taxing Officer, Rourkela thereafter, for return of the documents, which were returned to the Petitioner on 28.8.2008. On 29.8.2008, he produced the same before the concerned Traffic Inspector as well as the Opp. Party No. 1, who refused to release the vehicle on the ground that the Petitioner has to pay the tax for the entire period from October, 2003 till August, 2008 as there was no endorsement regarding issuance of No Objection Certificate by the R.T.O., Keonjhar to Chainbasa, Jharkhand. 3. Mr. D.B. Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the demand of tax as aforesaid along with the penalty imposed by the R.T.O., Keonjhar is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and based on extraneous consideration. According to the Petitioner, since he has already paid tax for the period for which it was demanded from him, there was absolutely no reason on the part of the Traffic Inspector-O.M.V.D. to seize the vehicle. Action of non-issuance of the seizure list as well as demand for payment of tax or penalty is also illegal. Being aggrieved by such action on the part of the Traffic Inspector, the Petitioner has approached this Court in the present Writ Petition for appropriate relief. 4. Mr. Panda, Learned Standing Counsel (Transport), on the contrary, while denying the allegations made by the Petitioner, submitted on instructions, that the previous registered owner of the vehicle, who has sold the vehicle to the Petitioner, took the vehicle on 30.9.2002 to Chainbasa along with a No Objection Certificate issued by the R.T.O., Keonjhar to the D.T.O., Giridi in the state of Jharkhand. The vehicle was again brought back to Orissa on 3.7.2003 along with No Objection Certificate from the D.T.O., Giridi addressed to the R.T.O., Keonjhar and when the vehicle passed through Nalda Check Gate, tax till 3.8.2003 was collected from it for the period till 3.8.2003. The claim of the Petitioner that the vehicle was again taken back to Chainbasa in September, 2003 is not known to the Taxing Officer, Keonjhar as No Objection Certificate was not issued by him. Mr. Panda further submitted that even the claim of the Petitioner that the previous owner paid tax from October, 2003 till June, 2008 at Chainbasa is also not known to the Taxing Officer, Keonjhar. Mr. Panda further submitted that even the claim of the Petitioner that the previous owner paid tax from October, 2003 till June, 2008 at Chainbasa is also not known to the Taxing Officer, Keonjhar. He further submitted that, no doubt, the Petitioner after getting the vehicle to Rourkela has paid tax for the months of July, 2008 to September,' 2008. Mr. Panda, therefore, submitted that as the vehicle was taken out of the State without issuance of No Objection Certificate and remained out side till it was brought to Rourkela, the registered owner is liable to pay tax for the said period under the Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. He relied upon Section 3 of the Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act and submitted that a vehicle either plying or kept for plying is liable to pay tax and even if the vehicle is taken out of the State, if the same was neither intimated to the authorities nor No Objection Certificate was obtained, the owner would be liable to pay tax for the said period as if the vehicle was kept inside the State for plying. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Mahakoshal Tourist, Napier Town and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. In the said case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the question of refund of tax under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act of Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court in the said case has interpreted Section 3 of the, Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, which is in pari materia of Section 3 of the O.M.V.T. Act and held that Section 3 is the charging section and assessment procedure is laid down in Section 8 of the said Act. The Supreme Court has further held that the charging section envisages levy of tax on vehicle used or kept for use in the State at the rate specified in the schedule. Admittedly, the vehicle in question is included in the schedule. The Supreme Court, interpreting the expression "used" or "kept for use" held that it means, either the actual use of the vehicle on the roads of the State or keeping the vehicle (which is in condition and capable of being used) available for use in the State, if so desired. Admittedly, the vehicle in question is included in the schedule. The Supreme Court, interpreting the expression "used" or "kept for use" held that it means, either the actual use of the vehicle on the roads of the State or keeping the vehicle (which is in condition and capable of being used) available for use in the State, if so desired. The Supreme Court further held that while plying outside the State in connection with a contract, a vehicle will, nonetheless, be within the import of "kept for use" in the State and it is immaterial for the purpose of Section 3 of the said Act, whether a vehicle is actually being used or kept for use in the State. (Emphasis supplied). The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. If, in fact, the vehicle in question was taken outside the State without a no Objection Certificate being issued by the Transport Authority or without due intimation to the said authority, applying the principle laid down in the case of Mahakoshal Tourist, Napier Town and others (supra), tax will be leviable from the Petitioner. 5. Since Mr. Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that when the vehicle was taken to Chainbasa, the R.T.O., Keonjhar issued a No Objection Certificate, which is not admitted by Mr. Panda, Learned Standing Counsel (Transport), in the fitness of things and for the ends of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the matter should be remitted back to the Taxing Authority, i.e., the R.T.O., Keonjhar to examine the case of the Petitioner and find out, if, in fact, the Petitioner is liable to pay the tax and penalty as demanded or he was actually issued with a no Objection Certificate so as to exempt him from paying the tax demanded. Ordered accordingly. 6. While doing so, the R.T.O. shall afford an opportunity to the Petitioner to produce all relevant documents for his consideration. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of forty five days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the R.T.O., Keonjhar by the Petitioner along with the documents which he may produce before the said R.T.O. 7. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of forty five days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the R.T.O., Keonjhar by the Petitioner along with the documents which he may produce before the said R.T.O. 7. Since the vehicle has been seized with effect from 6.8.2008, i.e., about six months ago, considering the amount of tax and penalty demanded, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner, for the present, deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with the R.T.O., Keonjhar the vehicle shall be released in his favour. Such deposit, if made by the Petitioner, shall be subject to final assessment of tax and penalty. On release of the vehicle, if the Petitioner makes a proper application, the concerned Transport Authority shall issue fitness certificate and permit to the Petitioner if there is no other impediment. It is needless to mention that the demand notice for payment of tax and penalty as already issued, as submitted by Mr. Panda, shall not be given effect to and tax and penalty, if any, assessed afresh, shall be leviable from the Petitioner subject to adjustment of the amount paid or orders, if any, which may be passed by the appellate authority in the event any appeal is preferred by the Petitioner on such demand of tax. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.