M.N. Rao, J.
1. These two writ petitions raise identical questions for resolution and so we are inclined to dispose them of by this common judgment. Suffice it to mention the facts in W.P.166 of 89. The petitioner is an inter-state operator originally plying on the route Madras to Arambakkam and this route, by virtue of the Inter-State Transport Reciprocal Agreement between the Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu notified in G.O.Ms. No. 715 Home (Transport-1) dated 2-6-1975, was allotted to the State of Tamilnadu. He applied to the Tamilnadu State Transport Authority seeking variation of the route by extension from Madras to Arambakkam as Madras to Sullurpet. When the State Transport Authority, Madras dismissed his application he preferred an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras which by its order dated 23-12-1975 allowed the appeal and granted the variation in consequence of which the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh was asked by its counterpart in Madras to grant concurrence. The State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh rejected the request for concurrence on the ground that a part of the route in question is covered by one of the routes, Nellore to Ramapuram included in the approved scheme published in G.O.Ms.No. 1121 dated 8-10-75. The order of the S.T.A., was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and thereafter he filed W.P.No. 345 of 1979 in this Court. A learned single judge dismissed the writ petition taking the view that the area between Arambakkam and Sullurpet is not covered by the Inter-State Agreement and, therefore, the provisions of Section 68-FF of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are attracted as a result of which the petitioner was not entitled to the permit in respect of variation sought; the provisions of Section 68-FF of the Act forbid grant of a new permit when a scheme had been published save in cases where the provisions of the scheme itself provide for an exception. The learned judge also expressed the view that an application for variation of a route must necessarily be treated as an application for grant of a new permit by virtue of the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 57 of the Act. During the pendency of the writ petition, by an interlocutory order of a learned single judge, the S.T.A., Andhra Pradesh was directed to counter-sign the permit without insisting on payment of any tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh. When the writ petition was dismissed on 5-6-79, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal - W.A.No. 222 of 79 -which was disposed of by a Division Bench on 4-8-87 by a common order along with W.P.No. 5881 of 1978. The Division Bench noticed the fact that the relevant approved scheme based upon which the contention was advanced by' the Government that the petitioner was not entitled to countersignature in respect of the variations sought, was not produced and therefore, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal as well as the writ petition observing:
'Since the issue raised is of a fact and no investigation is done in that regard, we deem it proper the case be remanded. The order under appeal in writ appeal is set aside. There would be a remand to the State Transport Authority at Hyderabad in the above two cases to find out under which clause or clauses of the approved scheme the permit holders are entitled to have the counter signature obtained from the Andhra Pradesh Authorities. The Writ Petition and the writ appeal are ordered as indicated. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150/-. Pending consideration, if the route permit holder is interested to ply in the sector in Andhra Pradesh he or they may pay tax. In the event of decision going in favour of the writ petitioners, they will be entitled to the refund of the amount paid.'
Pursuant to the above directions the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Authority passed a resolution on 28-11-88 in R.No. 45042/E1/78, the operative portion of which reads:
'The notified scheme of APSRTC relating to route Nellore to Ramapuram published in G.O.Ms.No. 1121 Transport R & B (Tr.V), Dt.8-10-75 overlaps the varied portion from Arambakam to Sullurpet, but the condition No. 4 stipulated under the said scheme gives protection to the existing holder of stage carriage permits in respect of route or routes which partially overlaps on the proposed route provided both the termini of such route or routes are not on the proposed route. The permit holder is entitled to have countersignature for the varied portion Arambakkam to Sulltirpet under Clause 4 of the above scheme and the countersignature for the varied portion is therefore granted.'
Thereafter, the Transport Commissioner, who is the Chairman of the State Transport Authority, in compliance with the second direction issued by the Division Bench for refund of the tax paid in the event of the decision going in favour of the writ petitioner, granted refund to the petitioner by his order dated 3-1-89 in R.No. 45042/E1/88 observing:
'In view of the decision having gone in favour of the permit holder and as per the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the above W.A., the permit holder is entitled for refund of tax paid from 1-1-88 to 30-11-88 in respect of bus., TDH 3636. Therefore, the tax paid for the above period is refunded.'
Subsequently the Secretary of the State Transport Authority by his order dated 27-12-88 in R.No. 45042/E1/78 endorsed the variation subject to the condition of the petitioner paying separate tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh for the extended portion of the route i.e., from Arambakkam to Sullurpet.
The material portion of the order passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority is in the following terms:
'As per the provision made under the taxation item in the Inter-State Agreement published in G.O.Ms.No. 715 Home (Tr.I) Dated 2-6-75 and in the notification issued under Section 9(1) of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963, the vehicles operating in pursuance of a reciprocal agreement entered between the two states are only exempt from payment of tax to reciprocating State. Since the route Madras to Sullurpet is not covered by Inter-State Agreement, the permit holder is liable to pay separate tax to A.P. State for the extended portion on which the vehicle TDH 3636 is operating. Therefore, countersignature of a variation is given subject to double point tax till the route is included in the Inter-State Agreement and approved under Section 63(3-3) of Motor Vehicles Act. Necessary endorsement of countersignature of the variation is made in the permits and the records produced are returned herewith.'
Challenging the legality of the order of the Secretary, State Transport Authority in so far as it relates to payment of separate tax for the extended portion of the route the present writ petition W.P.166 of 1989 was filed.
2. Shri G. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that:
(1) the Secretary, State Transport Authority, as a member of the State Transport Authority was a party to the resolution dated 28-11-1988 under which unconditional countersignature was granted, has no authority to -insist upon payment of tax as a condition for granting countersignature;
(2) By virtue of the resolution of the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Authority agreeing for the counter-signature, the variation of the route in question by necessary implication must be construed as one brought about by mutual agreement as contemplated in Clause (b) of paragraph 1 of the Inter-State Agreement published in G.O.Ms.715 dated 2-6-75 and consequently under Clause (a) of paragraph 6 of the said agreement the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the reciprocating State:
(3) Insistence on payment of double tax by the State of Andhra Pradesh is arbitrary and unsustainable; and
(4) The variation of extension of the route does not amount to the grant of a new permit in relation to that route. Hence, no additional tax liability can be fastened while countersigning the permit for extended route.
3. Opposing these contentions, the learned Government Pleader asserted that the resolution of the State Transport Authority dated 28-11-88 agreeing for countersignature has not granted exemption to the petitioner from payment of tax and, therefore, the Secretary, State Transport Authority as the licensing authority under the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is obliged to impose tax on the petitioner for the use of the stage carriage on the extended route from Arambakkam to Sullurpet.
4. The learned counsel for both sides admitted that there is no judicial precedent laying down the proposition that where variation is granted by the reciprocating State in respect of an inter-State route covered by an Inter State Agreement, on the ground that an approved scheme exempts an existing operator on an Inter-State route and thereby excludes the operation of Section 68-FF of the 1939 Act which forbids a transport authority from granting permits save in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, no tax can be levied and collected in relation to the inter-State route in respect of that patl of the varied route lying in the reciprocating State.
5. Re.1:- The Secretary, State Transport Authority is the Member-Secretary of the State Transport Authority constituted under Section 44(1) of the 1939 Act. It is true that he was a party to the resolution dated 28-11-88, but the mid resolution does not grant any exemption in favour of the petitioner from payment of tax in relation to the varied portion of the route. What all the resolution says is that as condition No. 4 of the approved scheme exemption is existing operators, the petitioner was entitled to have countersignature for the varied portion. The granting of countersignature on that premise cannot be construed as an exemption from payment of motor vehicles tax in relation to the extended route. The A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 is a self contained code dealing with levy of tax on motor vehicles in the State1 of Andhra Pradesh. Section 3, the charging section, by Sub-section (1), obligate the Government to direct by notification from time to time levy of tax on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in a public place in the State. Clause (c) of Section 2 defines licensing officer as meaning an officer appointed by the Government as such for the purposes of the Act. There is little dispute that the Secretary, State Transport Authority is a licensing officer. The vehicle in question is undoubtedly being used in the State of Andhra Pradesh and, therefore, by virtue of Section 3(1) the petitioner is liable to pay tax. The contention that the Secretary of the State Transport Authority who issued the impugned order being a party to the earlier resolution of the State Transport Authority dated 28-11-88, has no legal authority to demand tax from the petitioner in respect of the varied portion of the route, does not merit acceptance.
6. Re.2:- Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 lays down the -procedure for making applications for granting permits. The proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 63 lays down that the said procedure has no application for grant of counter signatures of permits covered by Inter-State Agreements.
7. The crucial aspect to be considered is whether the variation granted by the State Transport Authority, Tamilnadu and the countersignature granted by the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Authority was the result of 'mutual agreement' as contemplated by Clause (b) of paragraph 1 of the Inter-State Agreement. In our view the answer is in the negative. Clauses (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of the Agreement read:
'(b) Any variation of that part of an inter-state route which lies exclusively in one State may be made by the Transport Authority of that State in respect of services run by operators of that State;
Provided that such variations by the Transport Authority of that State may be brought to the notice of the reciprocating State. In the case of Inter-State routes where the variation is sought in the reciprocating State it will be decided by the respective State Transport Authority by mutual agreement having regard to the principle of parity of service kilometerage referred to paragraph (c) below.
(c) There shall be parity of service kilometerage as far as possible in respect of Inter-State routes. This principle will apply to the routes included in the Appendices to variations thereof....'
Clause (a) of paragraph 6 of the Inter-State Agreement says that:
'Transport vehicles covered by this agreement shall be exempt from payment of any tax to the reciprocating State.'
8. The route Madras to Arambakkam is covered by the Inter-State Agreement and allotted to the State of Tamilnadu. In relation to that route, the State of Andhra Pradesh is not entitled to levy or collect any tax. But, as regards the varied portion- from Arambakkam to Sullurpet- if the variation was by virtue of mutual agreement, it can be safely concluded that the operator is not liable to pay any tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the reciprocating State. In our view the variation in question was not the result of mutual agreement. The State Transport Authority, Tamilnadu granted variation pursuant to a direction issued by the Tamilnadu State Transport Appellate Tribunal which allowed the appeal of the petitioner herein. The variation agreed to by the State of Andhra Pradesh was not because of any mutual agreement, but because of condition No. 4 of the approved scheme which exempted existing operators. We are not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the State Transport Authority since the decision in that regard became final. But for condition No. 4 in the approved scheme, the petitioner would not have been in a position to obtain countersignature; the statutory embargo contained in Section .68-FF would have come,into operation. Only variations 'decided by the respective Transport Authorities by mutual agreement having regard to the principle of parity of service kilometerage' are covered by Clause (b) of paragraph 1 of the Inter-State Agreement but not variations of the present type.
9. The circumstances under which variation was granted do not warrant the inference that the variation by necessary implication was by mutual agreement.
10. Re.3:- The foundation for the writ petition is the assumption that the Secretary, State Transport Authority is insisting 'on the payment of double tax' which is factually incorrect. In relation to the extended area of the route Arambakkam to Sullurpet the petitioner has not paid tax to the State of Tamilnadu. The tax paid by the petitioner to the State of Tamilnadu was only in relation to the route Madras to Arambakkam which is covered by the Inter-State Agreement. As the portion in relation to that route was not brought about by virtue of any mutual agreement as contemplated by Sub-clause (b) of para 1 of the Inter-State Agreement, the embargo contained in para 4 of the said Agreement in relation to the reciprocating State, is not attracted. When once it is admitted that in relation to the extended portion no tax is paid to the State of Tamilnadu by the petitioner he cannot escape from the liability to pay motor vehicles tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 by Section 9 confers power on the Government to grant exemptions by issuing appropriate notifications. G.O.Ms.No. 2040, Home dated 11-10-1965 is one such notification issued under Section 9(1) of the said Act. The above G.O. grants exemption from payment of tax in respect of:
(1) stage carriages and contract carriages which are registered in the State of Madras and are operating on routes or in areas, as the case may be, lying partly in the State of Tamilnadu and partly in the State of Madras; and
(2) permits which have been duly countersigned by any Transport Authority in the State of Andhra Pradesh..
This exemption was subject to two conditions viz., (1) the vehicles so operating are in pursuance of a reciprocal arrangement agreed to between the two States; and (2) the tax leviable in respect of every such motor vehicle under any law for the time being in force in the State of Tamilnadu has been paid in full in that State.
11. The reciprocal arrangement as evidenced by the Inter-State Agreement does not cover the area between Arambakkam and Sullurpet and, therefore, the exemption from payment of tax as provided in G.O.Ms.No. 2040 dated 11-10-1965 is not attracted in the case of the petitioner. The plea that the petitioner was subject to double taxation is thus unsustainable.
12. Re.4:- In Shiv Chand Amolak Chand v. R.T. Authority, : [1984]1SCR288 it was ruled by the Supreme Court that a permit for the extended route does not become a new permit although the application to vary the conditions of a permit has to be treated as an application for granting a new permit under Sub-section (8) of Section 57. Speaking for the Division Bench, Bhagwati, J., (as he then was) observed:
'An application to vary the conditions of a permit as set out in Sub- Section (8) of Section 57 is undoubtedly to be treated as an application for grant of a new permit, but that is only for the purpose of applying the procedure set out in Sub-sections (3) to (7) of that Section. It is not an application for a new permit and if it is granted, the permit for the extended route does not become a new permit in the hands of the applicant. It is the same permit which now, after the granting of the application, covers the extended route.'
In K.S.R.T. Corporation, Bangalore v. B.A. Jayaram, : [1984]2SCR768 speaking for the Division Bench, Mandon, J., restated the principle:
'Reading Sub-section (3) to (8) of Section 57 as a whole, it is clear that the only purpose is to apply to such an application for variation the procedure prescribed by Sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 57 and not for the purpose of providing that when the application for variation is granted, the permit so varied would be deemed to be a new permit.'
13. In view of the aforesaid decisional law, we unhesitatingly hold that the view taken by Gangadhar Rao, J., in W.P.No. 345 of 1979 dated 25-6-79 that an application for variation of an inter-state route must be treated as an application for grant of a new permit by virtue of Sub-section (8) of Section 57 is erroneous and so with great respect to the learned Judge, we overrule the same. Even then the position as to tax liability remains unchanged. The liability to pay tax arises under Section 3 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act when the vehicle is used or kept for use in the public place in the State of Andhra Pradesh. As a result of variation of the route, the petitioner is entitled to ply the vehicle in Andhra Pradesh State. If so, the petitioner cannot escape from the liability to pay tax unless there is a specific provision granting exemption from the payment of Tax. As already noticed, G.O.Ms.No. 2040 Home, dated 11-10-1965 grants exemption only if the vehicle is plying on an inter-State route pursuant to a permit countersigned by the Transport Authority of the State of Andhra Pradesh and in pursuance of a reciprocal arrangement agreed to between the two States.
14. Having regard to our finding that there was no such agreement, we reject the last contention of the learned counsel.
15. The refund granted by the Transport Commissioner by his order dated 3-1-1989 was only pursuant to the direction granted by the Division Bench in the writ appeal - W.A.No. 222/79 extracted supra. The direction was to the effect that if the decision of the State Transport Authority was in favour of the appellants they are entitled to refund of the amount paid for plying their vehicles in the sector in Andhra Pradesh State. The direction does not lay down the principle of law that in the event of countersignature being granted by the State of Andhra Pradesh, there is no liability to pay tax and that the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 is inapplicable. No such contention was raised nor decided by the Division Bench. The question as to the petitioner's liability to pay tax did not fall for consideration at all before the Division Bench and, therefore, the direction granted in the writ appeal is of no assistance to the petitioner.
16. For these reasons, both the writ petitions fail and accordingly they are dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Advocate's fee: Rs. 350/- in each.
17. Sri G. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, has made an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our considered opinion, these two cases do not raise substantial questions of law of general importance, which need to be decided by the Supreme Court. In the circumstances leave is refused.