Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in W.P.No.16683 of 2011 was granted an All India Tourist Permit to his vehicle Mahindra XYLO E4 M to ply on all roads except those prohibited and the permit is valid for five years i.e., from 04.08.2010 to 03.08.2015 for five years. The authorization is also valid from 04.08.2010 to 03.08.2015. The seating capacity of the vehicle is 7 in all. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.19996 of 2011 was granted an All India Tourist Permit to his vehicle Mahindra XYLO D2 MDI to ply on all roads except those prohibited and the permit is valid for five years i.e., from 16.09.2010 to 15.09.2015. The authorization is also valid from 16.09.2010 to 15.09.2015. The seating capacity of the vehicle is 7 in all. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.16683 of 2011 paid Rs.6,610/-on 04.08.2010 and the petitioner in W.P.No.19996 of 2011 paid Rs.6,710/-on 13.09.2010 for the entire period of five years. However, the respondent issued the impugned order dated 13.06.2011 directing each of the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/-as tax for the quarter ending 30.06.2011. 4. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions seeking to quash the aforesaid impugned order dated 13.06.2011 on the ground that already they paid tax for the entire period of five years and therefore, they are not liable to pay any tax. 5. The respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the Innova Tourist Motor Cabs having the seating capacity of 7 in all were imposed with the tax of Rs.500/- per seat and the same is extended to the Mahindra Vehicles having the seating capacity of 7 in all, by a circular dated 05.04.2010 of the Government. Hence, for every quarter, the petitioners are liable to pay Rs.3,000/-towards tax. It is stated that each of the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.12,000/- per year comprising four quarters and the amount of Rs.6,610/- and Rs.6,710/- respectively already paid by the petitioners would be adjusted and the balance alone would be recovered from the petitioners. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has no power to issue the circular directing to pay Rs.500/-per seat as tax for Mahindra vehicles and the same is opposed to the decision of this Court in A.SADIQ VS. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER [2002 Writ L.R. 811]. 8. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has no power to issue the circular directing to pay Rs.500/-per seat as tax for Mahindra vehicles and the same is opposed to the decision of this Court in A.SADIQ VS. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER [2002 Writ L.R. 811]. 8. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the cases on hand, as the Transport Commissioner sought to levy additional tax in the case of persons who committed irregularities and violations. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. The Innova Tourist Motor Cabs having the seating capacity of 7 in all are charged Rs.500/- per seat, as tax, as per Circular No.45/2006 dated 29.09.2006 of the Transport Commissioner, Chennai. The Transport Commissioner, Chennai, issued another circular bearing No.11/2010, dated 05.04.2010 stating that the "Tourist Motor Cab" of any kind, with seating capacity of 7 in all, is liable to pay tax at the rate of Rs.500/-per seat. It is not in dispute that the Mahindra vehicles owned by the petitioners have the seating capacity of 7 in all. Hence, in my view, there is nothing wrong in collecting the tax at the rate of Rs.500/- per seat. Further, it is clarified in the counter affidavit that the amount already paid by the petitioners for the entire five years of period would be adjusted towards the tax that are to be paid per quarter, at the rate of Rs.500/- per seat. It is further stated by the learned Government Advocate that all Tourist Motor Cabs are paying the tax, all over the Tamil Nadu. 11. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, the aforesaid judgment of this Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of this case. In the said case, the Transport Commissioner sought to levy additional tax on the persons, who commits violations / irregularities. Such a circular was held to be illegal by this Court. Hence, the judgment could not be applied to the facts of this case. Furthermore, neither the circular dated 29.09.2006 nor the circular dated 05.04.2010 of the Transport Commissioner, Chennai are put to challenge. 12. In these circumstances, these writ petitions fails and the same are dismissed. No costs. Such a circular was held to be illegal by this Court. Hence, the judgment could not be applied to the facts of this case. Furthermore, neither the circular dated 29.09.2006 nor the circular dated 05.04.2010 of the Transport Commissioner, Chennai are put to challenge. 12. In these circumstances, these writ petitions fails and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.