JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed wherein the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Transport Commissioner-cum- Chairman, S.T.A., Orissa, Cuttack in M.V. Tax Recovery Appeal No.1 of 2008 is under challenge whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Regional Transport Officer-cum-Taxing Officer, Keonjhar inflicting the demand of Rs.56,20,064/- towards arrear tax and penalty @ 200% amounting to Rs.1,12,40,128/- in respect of 13 unregistered Dumpers/Water Tankers has been affirmed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is an Ores Mines wherein for running the mining operation, 13 numbers of Dumpers/Water Tankers of 50T capacity have been operated. These Dumpers/Water Tankers are not ordinary commercial vehicles, which are sold off the show room, are manufactured especially for use in mining operation. The dimensions, i.e., width, length, overhead, type size and ply rating of tyre of the Dumpers/Water Tankers are such a nature that it cannot ply over the roads. It is the case of the petitioner that since it is being utilized within the premises of the mining area and as such, it will not come under the purview of the Motor Vehicle. The opposite party no.2 had issued a show cause to the petitioner on 12.12.2006 demanding Rs.56,20,064/- towards arrear tax and penalty in respect of 13 nos. of unregistered heavy Dumpers/Water Tankers under Rule-2 of Schedule-II appended to the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. In pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner entered appearance and filed a detailed show cause contending inter alia that Dumper will not come under the category of Motor Vehicle and the amount has already been paid by them. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 has reduced the demand from Rs.56,20,064/- to Rs.17,31,728/-. By order dated 29.3.2007, the opposite party no.2 has rejected the show cause filed by the petitioner holding therein that the Dumpers are Motor Vehicles within the meaning and ambit of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly, an appeal has been filed before the Transport Commissioner, Orissa, Cuttack being M.V. Tax Recovery Appeal No.1 of 2008, but without considering the submission raised before the appellate forum, the order passed by the original authority on 29.3.2007 has been affirmed against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Dumpers have not coming within the fold of Section-2(28) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 2(b) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 and as such, the entire demand along with the penalty is without jurisdiction and as such, the same is fit to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that it is incorrect statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the demand of Rs.56,20,064/- has been reduced to the tune of Rs.17,31,728/- rather, the order dated 29.3.2007 under Annexure-1 reflects that the tax which has been paid by the petitioner is less amount of tax than the specified tax slab fixed by the Government of Orissa and as such, the petitioner is liable to pay the differential tax and penalty as per Section-13 of Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. He further submits that there is no question of reducing the quantum of the demand, since the same has been issued on the proper assessment of the taxation of the vehicles in question. So far as the legal issue raised by the petitioner as to whether the Dumpers are coming within the meaning of Motor Vehicles or Motor Vehicles Act, it has been submitted that this issue has already been decided in the case of Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area and others v. State of Orissa and another, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 676 as also in the judgment rendered in the case of Chief General Manager, Ib Valley Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Brajarajnagar v. State of Orissa and two others, reported in 2002 (Supp.) OLR - 277 wherein the Dumpers have been fallen under the fold of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of such ground, it has been submitted that the order passed by the original authority or by the appellate forum has got no infirmity. So far as the quantum of taxation is concerned, it has been submitted that there is no infirmity in the same, since the petitioner being the Government of India Enterprises defaulted in paying the road tax of the vehicles used by it, which resulted into the demand of the taxation as also the penalty which provides under the statute @ 200%. Hence, there is no illegality in the demand raised by the opposite party, the assessing authority. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. The first ground taken by the petitioner regarding the illegality and impropriety of the decision taken by the original authority that the Dumpers will not come within the fold of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This issue has also been decided by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court and taking into consideration that though the judgment of Division Bench of Hon’ble the Apex Court has also been decided the issue in the case of Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area and others (supra), following the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has also passed a judgment in the case of Chief General Manager, Ib Valley Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Brajarajnagar (supra) wherein it has been held that Dumpers used will be under the fold of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of such situation, the issue raised by the petitioner, since has already been settled and as such, this point is not available for the petitioner to raise again before this Court. 7. The second contention that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.17,31,728/- and thereby the authorities have reduced the total amount of taxation, but that is not the real fact rather, the petitioner has paid a sum or Rs.17,31,728/- which has not been recorded in the order dated 29.3.2007 and the original authority has specifically observed that the part of the demand has been paid and as such, the petitioner is liable to pay the differential tax and penalty as per Section-13 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. In view of the order dated 29.3.2007, it is misleading the statement of the petitioner that non-payment of Rs.56,20,064/- has been reduced to Rs.17,31,728/-. 8. So far as the penalty is concerned, the petitioner, being utilizing the vehicles, is liable to pay taxation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975, but the taxation has been avoided to be paid. Hence, as per the statutory provision which contains that in case of default in making payment of taxation, the penalty @ 200% will be inflicted, accordingly, the penalty @ 200% has been imposed upon the petitioner. Hence, as per the statutory provision which contains that in case of default in making payment of taxation, the penalty @ 200% will be inflicted, accordingly, the penalty @ 200% has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order passed by the original authority. The appellate authority, after taking into consideration the provision of Section-2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 2(b) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975, has came to the conscious decision that the Dumpers are coming under the fold of the statute and accordingly, affirmed the order passed by the original authority. 9. According to the considered view of this Court that since the Dumpers are the Motor Vehicles, as has already been decided and as such, the tax is liable to be paid upon the same. But since it has not been paid as per the provision made, the demand has been raised along with penalty by the original authority and in appeal, the appellate authority has taken into consideration the entire aspect of the matter and as such, there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the authorities. 10. It is settled that if anyone is liable to make payment of taxation, it is the duty to pay the same. 11. In view thereof, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.