The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint and several liability of the registered owner and the person in possession or control of the vehicle for unpaid tax, as well as the interpretation of S.13 and the validity of demand notices under S.34 of the Revenue Recovery Act.

Mohammed, J.

This writ petition has been filed praying to quash Ext. P2 demand notice issued under S.34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. By Ext. P2 an amount of Rs. 3,610/- was sought to be recovered as arrears of motor vehicle tax due in respect of the vehicle, KLA 9460.

2. The case of the petitioner who is the original owner of the said vehicle is this: As per Ext. P1 agreement dated 28.11.1985 the vehicle was transferred to the fifth respondent for a consideration of Rs. 27,000/-. Shortly after the payment of the balance amount as per the said agreement the petitioner handed over the registration book as well as the insurance policy to fifth respondent. He had also intimated the change of transfer in favour of the fifth respondent by submitting a letter in the prescribed form to the Regional Transport Officer, Quilon. Thereafter, 5th respondent was paying the motor vehicle tax fill 1987. After the receipt of Ext. P2 notice, the petitioner had filed a representation before the second respondent, Tahsildar, Karunagappally. However, the second respondent proceeded with the steps pursuant to Ext. P2. It was in the aforesaid background the present writ petition was filed.

3. By virtue of the provisions contained in S.9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the Petitioner pleads that the tax should have been collected from the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle was transferred or from the person who was in possession or control of the vehicle. S.9 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:

"9. Liability to payment of tax by persons succeeding to the ownership, possession or control of motor vehicles.

(1) If the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before payment of the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax.

(2) Nothing contained, in sub-s.(1) shall be deemed to affect the liability to pay the said tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle. Under this provision, the person succeeding to the ownership, possession or control of Motor Vehicles is liable to pay the tax. In order to attract this provision two requirements are to be fulfilled. They are: (i) the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment, and (ii) such person before payment of tax transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of the vehicle. Under S.3 tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State. Under sub-s.(3) of the said section, the registered owner of, or any person having possession or control of, a motor vehicle shall be deemed to use or keep such vehicle for use. Thus, the liability to pay the tax is imposed on the registered owner or on the person having possession or control of the vehicle. In the case of transfer of vehicle, the transferee is also liable to pay the tax remains unpaid before transfer under S.9(1) of the Act. That does not mean the liability of the transfer or the person who is ceased to be in possession has effaced. What the above provisions indicate is the liability to pay the tax by the registered owner and the person having possession or control of the vehicle is joint and several. Likewise, the liability of the transferor and transferee is also joint and several in respect of the tax remains unpaid before the transfer.

4. In this case, the petitioner has produced Ext. P1 agreement executed between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. It is evident from Ext. P1 that the vehicle was sold for an amount of Rs. 27,000/- out of which Rs. 15,000/- was paid on the date of execution of Ext. P1. It was agreed betwe