JUDGMENT P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. This writ petition is to quash the proceedings of the respondents culminating in Ext. P-12 order of the 1st respondent in so far as it relates to the Motor Vehicles tax due from the petitioner under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the period after 1st April 1976 relating to four stage carriage vehicles owned by the petitioner. These vehicles were plying on the route between Edathwa and Thiruvalla. The route was nationalised by the Government and on account of that the petitioner stopped plying the vehicles from hi April 1976 onwards. Due intimation was given to the Regional Transport Officer, the 4th respondent in regard to each of the four vehicles. Ext P-1, dated 1st April 1976 is the intimation relating to Vehicles No. KLA 2037 garaged from 1st April 1976 and claiming exemption from payment of tax from 1st April 1976, till the vehicle is put on service again. 2. Similar intimation was given in regard to the other vehicles also on the same day. An intimation in Form No. 'G' prescribed under the Act was also submitted on the same day. Ext. P-2 is a copy of the intimation in Form G. Ext. P-3 is a letter in reply by the 4th respondent the Regional Transport Officer stating that since the registration certificate of the vehicle concerned was not surrendered as required by R.10 of the rules framed under the Act the vehicle is not eligible for exemption from taxation under S.5 of the Act. Shortly afterwards the petitioner submitted the certificates of registration of the four vehicles along with Ext. P-4 letter addressed to the 4th respondent. Exts. P-6, P-7 and P-8 are notices issued by the 4th respondent to show cause why the registration certificates of the vehicles concerned should not be suspended and Ext. P-9 is the order of cancellation of the registration certificate relating to one of the vehicles found to have been dismantled and sold as scrap. The petitioner had no objection in suspending or cancelling the certificate of registration as he had already stopped plying the vehicle with effect from 1st April 1976. Exts. P-10 and P-11 are notices issued by the 4th respondent to show cause why the certificates of registration should not be cancelled. The petitioner had no objection for the cancellation of the certificates. Exts. P-10 and P-11 are notices issued by the 4th respondent to show cause why the certificates of registration should not be cancelled. The petitioner had no objection for the cancellation of the certificates. Ext. P-12 is the reply from the Government on a representation Ext. P-5 submitted by the petitioner. Ext. P-12 states that the Government are unable to concede to the petitioner's request for exemption of tax for the stage carriages concerned. Ext. P-13 is the statement of liability of tax due on the four vehicles. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings for realisation of the motor vehicles tax said to be due under the Act for the period after 1st April 1976. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Water and Transport, it is stated in Para.6 as follows: "6. It is true that the above vehicles were off road from 1st April 1976 onwards. The request for tax exemption was rejected since the Registration Certificate was not surrendered in time, as per S.5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act read with R.10 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules. The petitioner has produced the Registration Certificate in respect of the above vehicles only on 4th October 1976. The taxation authority has no discretionary powers to exempt the R.10 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules and so Revenue Recovery steps were initiated in respect of the above vehicles." 4. Sub-s.(1) of S.3 enacts that subject to the other provisions of the Act on and from the date of commencement of the Act, tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State at the rate specified for such vehicle in the Schedule; and sub-s.(3) enacts a presumption of law that the owner or person in possession of a motor vehicle shall be deemed to be using or keeping such vehicle for use in the State, except during any period for which no tax is payable on such motor vehicle under sub-s.(1) of S.5. Sub-s.(1) and (2) of S.5 read as follows: "5. Exemption from tax. Sub-s.(1) and (2) of S.5 read as follows: "5. Exemption from tax. - (1) In the case of a motor vehicle which is not intended to be used or kept for use during the first month or the first and second months of a quarter, or the whole of a quarter or year, as the case may be, the registered owner or the person having possession or control of such vehicle shall give previous intimation in writing to the Regional Transport Officer from whom the endorsement for tax has been obtained, that such vehicle would net be used for such period and thereupon, the registered owner or such other person shall not be deemed to have used or kept for use the vehicle for such period, and no tax shall be payable in respect of such vehicle for such period. (2) Nothing in sub-s.(1) shall exempt a person from liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle, if, on verification, it is found that the motor vehicle has been used during such period or any portion thereof." It is the admitted case of both parties that the four vehicles concerned had not been used from 1st April 1976 onwards. It is also admitted that an intimation in writing as required by sub-s.(1) of S.5 had also been submitted by the petitioner. Exts. P-1 and P-2 are the written intimations relating to one of the vehicles produced in the case. 5. The only ground on which the claim for exemption was rejected is for the non compliance to R.10 of the rules framed under the Act as it then stood. Para.6 of the counter affidavit extracted above gives the reason why the exemption claimed was rejected. R.10 as it then stood required the previous intimation referred to in sub-s.(1) of S.5 to be submitted in Form G or in writing with the particulars mentioned therein accompanied by the certificate of registration of the vehicle so as to reach the Regional Transport Officer within one week from the date of commencement of the period for which exemption from payment of tax in respect of the vehicle is claimed due to non use. 6. The words "accompanied by the certificate of registration of the vehicle" had been deleted by amendment of the rule that came into force on 18th January 1978. 6. The words "accompanied by the certificate of registration of the vehicle" had been deleted by amendment of the rule that came into force on 18th January 1978. After the amendment, there is no need that the application for exemption should be accompanied by the certificate of registration. 7. The only question now before me is as to whether the omission to submit the certificates of registration along with the intimation under sub-s.(1) of S.5 is fatal to the claim of exemption of tax for the period after 1st April 1976 when admittedly the vehicles had not been in use. Sub-s.(1) of S.5 extracted above does not require the certificate of registration to accompany the previous intimation referred to therein. All that is required is that the previous intimation should be in writing and should be addressed to the Regional Transport Officer concerned. S.28 of the Act empowers the Government to make Rules by notification in the Gazette for carrying out the purposes of the Act. R.10 as it stood at the relevant time requiring the certificate of registration to accompany the intimation referred to in sub-s.(1) of S.5 in substance and effect enlarges and adds to the requirements of the section. If there is compliance to the requirements of the Section, the petitioner is entitled to exemption for the period concerned if the vehicle had not been in use during the relevant period. In the present case, there is no dispute and it is admitted that the vehicles had not been in use. There had been compliance to sub-s.(1) of S.5, on the submission of the intimation as required thereunder. The fact that the rule had enlarged the scope of the section, requiring to produce other documents to be submitted does not in any way disentitle the petitioner from claiming relief under sub-s.(1) of S.5. That part of the rule requiring submission of the certificate of registration has been subsequently deleted and it cannot now be said that an intimation as provided for in sub-s.(1) of S.5 should be accompanied by the certificate of registration. That part of the rule requiring submission of the certificate of registration has been subsequently deleted and it cannot now be said that an intimation as provided for in sub-s.(1) of S.5 should be accompanied by the certificate of registration. Even if the rule as it then stood is to be accepted as valid, there is substantial compliance to the requirements of the rule, and that part of the rule requiring the certificate of registration to accompany the intimation cannot be held to be mandatory in view of the provisions of sub-s.(1) of S.5 of the Act itself. 8. On the admitted facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to exemption of tax under the Act for the period after 1st April 1976. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that there will be a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay the motor vehicles tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1976 (Act 19 of 1976) in regard to the stage carriages KLA Nos. 665, 2037, 1193 and KLK 4188 for the period after 1st April 1976. There will be no order as to costs.