Two questions arise for consideration in this Writ Petition:

(i) whether the financier in respect of a hire purchase agreement on re-possession of the vehicle, due to the failure on the part of the transferee, is liable to clear the arrears of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, as an 'operator' as contemplated in the statute ;

(ii) whether quantification of the liability in the case of the petitioner is correct or proper.

2. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner, who is the financier, had extended a loan to the third respondent under a 'Hire Purchase' agreement in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL/01 E 3474. But the transferee failed to discharge his obligations, under which circumstance, there was no other alternative for the petitioner, but to re-possess the vehicle which in fact was done on 28.08.1998. Immediately, 'G' form was submitted before the concerned authorities in respect of the period from 01.09.1998 onwards. The case of the petitioner is that, since the vehicle was admittedly in garrage and was not put to use from 01.09.1998 and was covered by the 'G' form stated as received by the first respondent in Ext.P5 letter, no tax liability could have been mulcted on the shoulders of the petitioner/financier in respect of the said period, which is contrary to the actual facts and figures. Ext.P4 notice was issued in the year 2001 demanding huge amount of more than Rs. Eight lakhs in respect of the above period from 01.04.1996 till 31.08.2000 and also including overdue amount from 10.11.1994 to 31.03.1996, by virtue of the binding statutory prescription as to the revised rate of tax payable .

3. Challenging Ext. P4 demand notice, the petitioner had taken up the matter before the first respondent where interference was declined as per Ext. P5 order. This was further challenged in a Revision filed before the 4th respondent leading to Ext.P6 order passed on 11.03.2004, confirming the orders passed by the lower authorities and thus dismissing the Revision , which in turn has been subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition.

4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, seeking to justify the orders and proceedings issued by the respondents. In paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner had filed necessary 'G' forms in respect of the period from 01.09.1998 to 31.01.2001. After verification, it was revealed that the vehicle was not put to use on the road for the said period and accordingly exemption was granted for the said period on the basis of service verification report of the Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. Accordingly, only the balance sum of Rs.1,25,504/-was ordered to be remitted towards the balance tax, in respect of the period from 10.11.1994 to 31.03.1996, which constitutes the amount to be paid by virtue of the amendment of the Taxation Act as per the Finance Act 1994, by fixing the rate of tax at 'Rs.1000/-per quarter, per passenger' with respect to the contract carriage holding interstate service, having seating capacitry of more than '12'passengers.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of conclusion of the legal position as above, this extent of liability is not disputed by the petitioner and that the dispute is confined with regard to the liability in respect of the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.08.1998, which by itself comes to nearly Rs. Six lakhs. The subsequent liability in respect of the period 01.09.1998 to 31.01.2001 has been exempted, as stated in paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit.

6. In the above circumstances, the liability, if any other than the admitted extent shown as above, can only be with respect to the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.08.1998, the rest of the period have been exempted and dealt with separately as mentioned herein before. Since the respondents themselves have conceded in the counter affidavit that exemption has been