Judgment :- 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.7.2002 passed in W.P.No.13028 of 1995 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition in part and quashed the order dated 11.9.1995 whereby the Respondents viz., the Appellants herein demanded penalty for non-payment of Motor Vehicle Tax. 2. The Petitioner viz., the Respondent herein was granted Stage Carriage Permit for plying the vehicle on the route Bangalore to Salagiri and he was permitted to ply four singles. Again he applied for additional single which was ordered by the authority and the same was countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Tamil Nadu with a condition to pay the tax. The same was challenged by the Petitioner/Respondent by filing W.P. No.6483 of 1994. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 4.2.1994. However, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, there was an interim order of stay which was in force. After the dismissal of he Writ Petition the Respondents/Appellants demanded tax and also 200% penalty for non-payment of tax. The said demand was challenged by the Petitioner/Respondent by filing the above mentioned Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge admitted the Writ Petition and granted interim stay subject to the condition that the Petitioner/Respondent shall pay the entire arrears of tax in instalments. The Petitioner/Respondent said to have complied with the direction of the Court and paid the total amount of tax which he is liable to pay. The Petitioner/Respondent further contended that a sum of 2,43,336/- is not payable by him for the reason that the vehicle was not plied during the period 1.12.1992 to 21.11.1996. In support of his contention he produced necessary certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri. Learned Single Judge after hearing the Counsel for the parties held that their Petitioner/Respondent is not liable to pay penalty for the period when the order of stay granted by the Court was operative and the Writ petition was allowed in part with a direction to Respondents/Appellants to consider the liability of the Petitioner/Respondent for payment of tax for the period when the Petitioner/Respondent allegedly did not ply his vehicle. 3. So far as the question of payment of penalty is concerned, as noticed above, admittedly, because of the order of stay passed by this Court the Petitioner/Respondent was not supposed to pay the tax. 3. So far as the question of payment of penalty is concerned, as noticed above, admittedly, because of the order of stay passed by this Court the Petitioner/Respondent was not supposed to pay the tax. It was only after the order of stay is vacated because of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner/Respondent became liable to pay the arrears of tax which according to the Petitioner/Respondent was deposited. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the penalty for non-payment of tax for the period when the stay was in operation does not arise. We do not find reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs.