Bilal Nazki, J.

Counter has been filed and we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. With their consent, the writ petition is decided at this stage.

The petitioner is Proprietor of a Maxi Cab No.KA-02B-8224. He belongs to Mysore in the State of Karnataka and the vehicle is registered in Karnataka with an authorization for A.P. State, to ply throughout India. The permit is valid from 02.09.2003 to 01.09.2008. The authorization is valid till 01.09.2007. It is covered by payment of tax to the Home State valid upto 31.01.2007. Its insurance and fitness certificates were valid on the relevant date. Although the petitioner’s vehicle was authorized to ply within the State of Andhra Pradesh, yet, it did not ply in the State of Andhra Pradesh at any time after the permit and authorization were granted. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was kept in the State of Karnataka, the Home State, and was being used in that State only. Vehicle did not operate, according to the petitioner, in the State of Andhra Pradesh and as such, no tax was payable by the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that although the vehicle in question was registered in the State of Karnataka and was authorized to ply in the State of Andhra Pradesh, it had to pay the tax only to the Karnataka State Government and tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh on its entry into Andhra Pradesh. If there was no occasion to enter into the State of Andhra Pradesh, the tax could not be levied on the petitioner’s vehicle. The mere authorization to ply the vehicle in the State of Andhra Pradesh does not entitle the authorities in Andhra Pradesh to demand tax.

There are some admitted facts. One of the admitted facts is that the vehicle had not been used in the State of Andhra Pradesh prior to the date when the vehicle was found at the Check-Post between the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Karnataka i.e. on 29.11.2006 when a check report was prepared by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. On finding the vehicle on the border of Andhra Pradesh, the authorities concerned demanded tax from the petitioner from the date the authorization to ply in Andhra Pradesh had been made. The petitioner paid tax for one month, but inspite of that, he was not allowed entry, according to him, in to the State of Andhra Pradesh.

In the counter affidavit, mainly it has been stated that once a person gets an authorization to ply the vehicle in a State other than the State where the vehicle is registered, he has to pay the tax to the State with respect to which an authorization has been obtained.

The only question before this Court is whether mere authorization to ply in a State entitles that State Government to levy and recover tax from such a vehicle. Mr. Noushad Ali, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, submits that in terms of Section 3 of The Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’), which is the charging Section, the State Government can direct that a tax can be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in a public place in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He submits that even if the Rules provide for levying tax on any vehicle which does not fall within Section 3 of the Act, that would be illegal, because, any tax collected on a motor vehicle, has to be in conformity with the mandate of Section 3 of the Act. He further submits that tax can only be levied and collected on a motor vehicle provided it is used or kept for use in a public place in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Admittedly, the present vehicle was not used in Andhra Pradesh and it was not even kept for use in the State of Andhra Pradesh, therefore, the Government has no power to levy tax on such a vehicle even if there was an authorization. We find considerable force in this argument. However, the learned counsel for respondent has drawn our attention to the Rules framed under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 19