1. This Writ Petition has come up for preliminary hearing today. Sri C.V. Kumar, Govt. Pleader to take notice for the respondents.
By consent of the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and I have heard them.

2. The petitioner who is a registered owner of the Stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No. MYN. 4457 has sought quashing of: -
(a) The demand notice dated 29-3-1993 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Mandya, to the effect of getting the seized vehicle released on payment of tax which was found due for the relevant period commencing from 1-1-1993 to 31-3-1993 when the vehicle was seized;
(b) And also the order dated 24-5-1993 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport Mysore in Appeal No. DCT. MYS. TAX. APL. 4/93-94 wherein the appellate authority confirmed the order of the Regional Transport Officer, Mandya.
Further the petitioner has sought necessary directions to be issued to the Transport authorities to accept the tax for the period 1-8-1993 onwards and to release the vehicle in question.

3. Few facts to briefly state are that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was found plying on the road on 26-1-1993 without payment of the tax when the Transport Authorities made a surprise check of the vehicle, and in view of the contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the Vehicle was seized by the Transport authorities. Subsequently on 29-3-1993, the Transport Authorities issued a notice to the petitioner, which inter alia reads: -
 (Vernacular matter omitted.)
Aggrieved against the notice dated 29-3-93 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Transport, Mandya, who after hearing the petitioner on 24-5-1993 confirmed the order of the Regional Transport Officer. Petitioner as against the order of the Deputy Commissioner has filed this writ petition.

4. The main grounds urged by the petitioner are: -
1) That seizure of the vehicle as being invalid and the same being excessive of the statutory powers conferred on the authorities under the Act since the vehicle was under major repairs and that the authorities did not take into consideration the allowable grace period for payment of tax.
2) The demand notice issued by the Regional Transport Officer for a period from 1-1-1993 to 31-3-1993 as being bad in law since demand should have been confined only to the month of January 1993 when the vehicle was seized for non - payment of tax.
e) That the Regional Transport Officer and as well as the Deputy Commissioner erred in not taking notice of the ratio of the decision rendered in the matter of Muthaya Moily v. R. T. O. D. K. District, reported in 1981 (1) Kant LJ 521 : AIR 1981 Kant 244 for purposes of quashing the entire demand. notice issued for quarterly payment that is for Jan., Feb. and March, 1993.
4. That both the R .T. O. and the appellate authority did not apply the law properly since the registered owner could not ply the vehicle during seizure and as such the period of seizure should have been reckoned for purposes of exemption of tax liability and further did not notice the fact that the registered owner would be entitled for refund of the amount for the period of seizure in case of payment of tax had been paid in advance.

5. Before dealing with the contentions advanced by the petitioner, the relevant provisions of the Taxation Act applicable to the subject matter are as hereunder: -
S.3 and S.4 of the Act. enjoins on the registered owner or person having possession and control of a Motor Vehicle kept in the State absolutely liable to pay tax in advance at the rates specified in the schedule thereto for a quarter, half year or year at his choice. As observed by the Supreme Court in Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1962 SC 1404, the tax on Motor Vehicles is