K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.

This Review Petition is preferred by the appellant in W.A.No.1933 of 2004 stating that some of the points urged by him were not considered by the Division Bench while disposing of the appeal. Review petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice Ext.P2 dated 26.8.1998 issued to him demanding motor vehicle tax of Rs. 48,450/- in respect of vehicle number KL 4A-2314 for the period from 1.1.1997 to 30.9.1998. According to the review petitioner, he had transferred possession of the vehicle to the first respondent on 29.3.1996 and the fact of transfer was intimated to the second respondent on 7.9.1998. Challenge was repelled by the learned single Judge in O.P. No 19600 of 2000 which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1933 of 2004 holding that the review petitioner is liable to pay the tax demanded since he continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle.

2. Sri. C.S.Manu, counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that a conjoint reading of S.3 and S.9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act would show that transferor of the vehicle is not liable to pay tax which fell due after the transfer of the ownership and possession. Counsel submitted that the presumption under the proviso to S.3 of the Act is rebuttable and the petitioner as per Ext. P2 has proved that he has intimated the transfer of the vehicle to the transferring authority and thus rebutted the presumption of ownership of the vehicle.

3. Sri Georgekutty Mathew, Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that there is no reason to review the judgment since all the aspects of the matter were considered by the Bench. In any view of the matter, Government Pleader submitted that the point raised is covered by various decisions of this court. Counsel referred to the unreported judgments of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1179 of 1994, W.A. No 2417 of 2006, W.A. No 41 of 2006 and also various other decisions.

4. The fact that the review petitioner continued to be registered owner of the vehicle is not disputed. The fact that the registration of the vehicle was not transferred to the first respondent is rather admitted. As per S.50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under Chapter IV of the Act is transferred, the transferor shall in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee and the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle normally kept and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.' Rule 55 of the Central Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 states that where the ownership of a motor vehicle is transferred, the transferor shall report the fact of transfer in Form 29 to the registering authorities concerned in whose jurisdiction the transferor and the transferee reside or have their place of business. An application for the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle shall be made by the transferee in Form 30 accompanied by the documents mentioned in the Rule. Transferee did not submit any application for transfer of ownership in Form 30 as required under Rule 55. Therefore, the Bench has rightly taken the view that there was no valid transfer of the vehicle as alleged. During the period for which tax is demanded the review petitioner is the registered owner of the v