ORDER
P.A. Mohammed, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash Ext. P2 demand notice issued under Section 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 fifth respondent was paying the motor vehicle tax till 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 Section 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. Section 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 lax 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 vehicles shall be liable to pay the said tax.
(2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (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 Section 3 tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle unsed or kept for use in the State. Under Sub-section (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 Section 9(1) of the Act. That does not mean the liability of the transferor 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. PI. It was agreed between the parties that the balance amount would be paid on or before 11-12-1985. There was a further clause in the agreement that if the fifth respondent makes any default in payment of the balance amount as stated therein, the petitioner is permitted to take away the vehicle from the possession of the fifth respondent. Therefore, what Ext. P1 agreement indicates is that there was no absolute transfer. No document has been produced by the petitioner to show that the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/-was paid by the fifth respondent and he was continuing in possession. Apart from the above, in order the transfer of the vehicle as per Exts. P1 to P3 to be effective an application, shall be submitted to the registering authority to effect the transfer after the receipt of the balance consideration from the fifth respondent. Apart from Ext. P1 agreement there is no other material to show that the petitioner has filed the requisite application before the authority concerned to effect transfer of the vehicle in favour of the fifth respondent. Unless there is proof for transfer it cannot be said that the requirement provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 had been complied with. Mere assertion of transfer is insufficient and that will not constitute a legal proof.
5. Learned counsel advanced another argument on the basis of Section 13. The argument is when there is power to distrain the motor vehicle in realisation of any amount due under the Act no revenue recovery proceedings shall be initiated. Section 13 is as follows :
“13. Amounts recoverable as arrear of land revenue —
(1) Any amount due under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be recoverable in the same manner as an arrear of public revenue due on land.
(2) The motor vehicle in respect of which any amount is due or its accessories may be distrained and sold in pursuance of Sub-section (1). whether or not such vehicle or accessories is or are in the possession or control of the person liable to pay the amount.”
Sub-section (1) of Section 13 authorises that any amount due under the Act can be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of public revenue due on land. In this case Ext. P2 is a notice issued under Section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act. But Sub-section (2) authorises the distraint of motor vehicles or its accessories and sale thereof in pursuance of Sub-section (1). That does not mean Sub-section (1) has no independent existence. The amount due under the Act can be recovered under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act as if it were arrear of public revenue due on land. The existence of Sub-section (2) does not mean that the effect of Sub-section (1) has been taken away. When the tax is sought to be recovered as an arrear of public revenue the authorities can also distrain the motor vehicle and proceed with the sale. Thus the purpose of Sub-section (2) is not to defeat Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) supplies a drastic mode of recovery. Therefore, Ext. P2 demand notice issued by the authority cannot be said to be illegal or improper.
6. In view of what is said above, there is no merit in the contention urged by the petitioner. The original petition is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.