( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the notice of demand, a true copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to the petition and the order passed by the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner of Transport, Belgaum Division, belgaum in appeal against the said demand notice The demand notice purports to be a demand for arrears of Motor Vehicles Tax for the period 1-1-1974 to 30-9-1974 and is for a sum of Rs. 1560/- The appellate order in pugned at Annexure-C is a consequence of the remand order passed by this Court in W. P. 6631 of 1978. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are as follows:the petitioner purchased the vehicle in question on 1-5-1974 from the 3rd respondent and admittedly sold it back to the third respondent on 21-9-1974. In other words, in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the most of the first and second quarters of 1974 the petitioner was the owner. When he purchased the vehicle the registration Certificate was endorsed duly as there being no arrears of tax r. 16. because tax at Rs 35 per seat per quarter had been paid in respect of that vehicle. However, on account ox the pronouncement of the Supreme court upholding the levy of tax at rs. 100 per seat on Contract Carriages the liability in respect of the vehicle in question for the relevant quarters automatically increased by Rs. 65 per quarter and it is that sum which has been demanded in the impugned notice from the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner has considered the argument advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner before him and he by a detailed order has come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent had the necessary authority and jurisdiction to issue the demand notice in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. S of the Act. ( 4 ) IN this Court, learned Counsel has contended that as he was not the owner of the vehicle on the date the tax was demanded as per Annexure-B, he was not liable to pay the same and the 1st respondent ought to have made the demand on the 3rd respondent who is the current owner of the vehicle in question. This argument must fail because sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 9 of the Act provide for collection of arrears of tax either from a person to whom the vehicle has been transferred or proposed to be transferred or from the previous owner. The choice is left to the Tax Officer to choose one or the other but the liability is on both the present and the past owner. ( 5 ) IN these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the appellate order at Annexure-C or the demand notice issued by the 1st respondent- therefore, this is not a fit case in which the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the constitution should be exerised in setting aside the appellate order or the demand notice issued. ( 6 ) THIS petition is rejected after notice to respondents. ( 7 ) THE petition coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents is disposed of as above without Rule being issued. ( 8 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .