TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of Tamil Nadu on and after 09.01.2013. Therefore, the petitioner would state that the authorization tax should not be demanded after 08.01.2013. Furthermore, the national permit has also lapsed on 08.01.2017. Therefore, when the petitioner approached the respondent for issuance of tax clearance certificate, the impugned demand notice has been issued. 3. The learned counsel on either side agreed that an identical issue was considered by this Court in the case of C. Mahendran Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruvarur (W.P.No. 26401 of 2016) and the said writ petition was allowed on 08.08.2016 following the earlier orders on similar issues, the operative portion of which reads as follows: "6. The above said issues were cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ative portion of the order reads as under:- 6. In my view, the subject matter of dispute is covered by the earlier judgments of this Court viz., by S.Govindasamy, J., in W.P.Nos.12300 and 12301 of 1990, dated 10.08.1990, and by Kanakaraj,J., in W.P.No.1946 of 1991 dated 21.03.1991 and W.P.No.18675 of 1990, dated 21.01.1991. The learned Judges have held that if no application for authorization is made, no demand could be made. The learned Judges followed the earlier ruling of T.Sathiadev,J., in W.P.No.2067 of 1985, dated 04.11.1987. Since the vehicle has been off the road from March, 1989, in other states, he is not liable to pay any tax or penalty as has been demanded. I have also carefully considered the argument of the learned Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied only to Tamil Nadu and not to other States. In the instant case, the petitioner has paid the tax due to the State of Tamil Nadu. Hence, I do not think, that Section 7 of the Act can be applied to the facts of this case as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader. So, I am not above to agree with the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader, that the impugned demand is valid in law, Kanakaraj,J., has considered the earlier decisions in W.P.No.18675 of 1990, dated 21.01.1991 and I am of the view that the issue raised by the petitioner has been decided in favour of the petitioner by Kanakaraj,J. It is useful to extract paragraph 3 of the order in W.P.No.18675 of 1991, dated 21.01.1991. "The learned counsel for the petitioner cite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d demand is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand is quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 8. It is further seen that the Transport Commissioner, Chennai had issued a circular in Circular No.36 of 2001, dated 03.09.2001, wherein a circular has been issued to the Regional Transport Officers to accept the surrender of permits without insisting proof of payment of tax and payment of composite tax, if authorization expired. The stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit stating that the circular is only a executive order issued in 2001, cannot be a valid stand to state that the circular need not be complied with. The circular having been issued by the Head of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed miscellaneous petition is closed." 7. The above decisions squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case, as the petitioner did not renew the authorization beyond 07.07.2012. Therefore, it is deemed that the vehicle was not operated outside the territory of State of Tamil Nadu though the vehicle had a National Permit. 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent shall not demand authorization tax (Rs.82,500/-, + 5,500/- as fees) as demanded in the proceedings dated 15.07.2016 for the period form 08.07.2012 to 07.07.2016 for accepting Surrender of National Permit in respect of the petitioner's Goods Carrier Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01/B-2417 by accepting....