JUDGMENT M.P. Menon, J. 1. In deciding the appeal as per Ext. P9, the Appellate Authority has stuck to the letter of the law i.e. to the requirements of S.5 of the Act, and R.10. That is certainly one way of looking at the matter. When the statute prescribes a method for getting exemption from payment of tax, that method alone, and that too in conformity with requirements of the statutory prescription, could be recognised, and none other. 2. The strictness of the above rule however should be tempered with an examination of the subject matter and the scope of statute in general Vehicles' tax is a compensatory tax, and is payable by the owner of a vehicle for using the roads. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Travancore Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others ( AIR 1980 SC 1547 ) mere registration of a vehicle is not sufficient to impose a tax on it; what attracts tax liability is its user as a means of conveyance. No doubt the Act imposes a liability to pay tax even where a vehicle is only kept for use, and is not actually used; but this is only a legislative device to ensure that the tax can be collected without imposing a burden on the taxing authorities to establish actual user in every case. Sub-s.(3) of S.5 itself is indicative of the above position. In other words, where a vehicle is admittedly not used or when it is in such a condition that it could not have been used at all (for example, when it is seized and kept under the custody of a court, or when it is not road fit) it would be idle to suggest that the owner should pay the tax on account of his failure to comply with S.5 and R.10. What is payable is a compensatory tax and not a penalty for violation of the Section and the Rule. It is this aspect of the matter that was emphasised by the Supreme Court in the case already noticed, as also in Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa ( AIR 1975 SC 17 ). 3. What is payable is a compensatory tax and not a penalty for violation of the Section and the Rule. It is this aspect of the matter that was emphasised by the Supreme Court in the case already noticed, as also in Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa ( AIR 1975 SC 17 ). 3. In Kathiri v. R T. O. ( 1965 KLT 1206 ) this Court had held that similar provisions of the 1963 Vehicles Taxation Act were not to operate as a bar against an enquiry into the question of actual user. The same view was taken, in respect of the present Act, in Cherian Thomas v. R T. O. ( AIR 1982 Ker. 152 ). It has therefore to be concluded that the method indicated by S.5(1) for getting tax exemption is not exclusive; an enquiry regarding actual use or 'keeping for use' is not ruled out by the Section. The provision for verification in Sub-s.(2) and the policy behind Sub-s.(3) are relevant in this context. 4. In the present case, the petitioner's contention was that his vehicle had met with an accident and was either not road worthy or, under the custody of the Railway authorities (or both) for the periods in question. I think he should have been given an opportunity to establish this case, in the proceedings under S.23. I therefore set aside Ext. P9 and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter after giving such an opportunity to the petitioner. Allowed to the above extent. No costs.