Judgment :- 1. The appellant claims that he is not liable to pay tax for the period in question in respect of his motor vehicle on the ground that the provisions of S.5 which provide for exemption from tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1976 are attracted. It is his case that the vehicle was sent to the garage for repairs and that therefore he sent an intimation in accordance with R.10 in Form G that the vehicle will not be used as it is in the garage for repairs. The authorities declined to exempt the appellant from payment of tax on the ground that it is not stated by the appellant as to what is the probable period during which the vehicle will not be in use. The requirement of S.5 is that exemption can be claimed only when previous intimation in writing is given to the Regional Transport Officer that the vehicle would not be used for the specified period. The essence of the matter is therefore of previous intimation that the vehicle would not be used and in regard to the actual period during which the vehicle would not be used. It is to give effect to the provisions of S.5 which provide for exemption that R.10 requires that intimation in this behalf shall be given to the concerned Regional Transport Officer in Form G or in writing with particulars required therein so as to reach him 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. On receipt of such an intimation, under sub-rule (2) of R.10, the Regional Transport Officer is required to verify and make a necessary endorsement in the certificate of registration of the vehicle. Form G requires information being furnished about the place where the vehicle is garaged and the date of garaging, reasons for the non-use, probable date on which the vehicle will be put to use, period upto which tax has been paid and the period for which tax exemption is requested for. In regard to the period for which tax exemption is requested for, the period specified is from 1-4-1981 to 30-9-1981. Tax exemption for this period in fact has been given. In regard to the period for which tax exemption is requested for, the period specified is from 1-4-1981 to 30-9-1981. Tax exemption for this period in fact has been given. Thus it is not disputed that exemption has been granted as prayed for by the appellant in Form G. The appellant says that he has said in the letter accompanying G Form that the vehicle would be put to use only when it is ready. It is on this slender material that the appellant claims that he is entitled to exemption from payment of tax for the period subsequent to 30-9-1981 upto 30-9-1982 on the ground that the vehicle was in fact in the garage and was not put to use by the appellant. The learned single judge has taken the view that previous intimation about non-user for the period subsequent to 30-9-1981 as required by S.5 read with R.10 and Form G not having been given, the appellant is not entitled to claim any exemption. We find it difficult to disagree with the view taken by the learned single judge. 2. Sub-section (1) of S.3 is the charging section which provides that 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. Sub-section (3) of S.3 provides that the registered owner of, or any person having possession or control of, a motor vehicle shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to use or keep such vehicle for use in the State, except during any period for which no taxis payable on such motor vehicle under sub-section (1) of S.5. Thus it becomes clear that a person having possession or control of a motor vehicle is deemed to have kept the vehicle for use in the State so as to attract tax liability under sub-section (1) of S.3. The owner of the vehicle can seek exemption by complying with the provisions of sub-section (1) of S.5. As already mentioned, sub-section (1) of S. S requires the previous intimation being given to the effect that the vehicle would not be used for the specified period. That is also the clear effect of R.10 and requirements of Form G. The essence of the matter, therefore, is of previous intimation specifying the period of non-user in order to claim exemption from tax. That is also the clear effect of R.10 and requirements of Form G. The essence of the matter, therefore, is of previous intimation specifying the period of non-user in order to claim exemption from tax. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, relied upon the judgment of a learned single judge of this court reported in 1985 K.L.J. 968 between Eastern Sea Foods (P) Ltd. and R.T.A. and Others. The learned single judge has pointed out therein after consideration of S.5 and R.10 that what is payable is a compensatory tax, and not a penalty for violation of the section and the rule. It is for that reason that the learned single judge has further held that the method indicated by S. S (1) for getting tax exemption is not exclusive and an enquiry regarding actual use or keeping for use is not ruled out by the section. In other words, this decision clearly lays down that even if there is non-compliance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of S.5 by the owner of the vehicle by not giving previous intimation as required by law, he would be entitled to claim exemption from payment of tax by establishing non-user of the vehicle for the specified period. We find it extremely difficult to agree with this view taken by the learned single Judge. It is clear that payment of tax gets extracted in respect of every motor vehicle which is used or kept for use in the State. There is a presumption that every vehicle possessed by a person is deemed to have been kept for use in the State except in cases where the exemption is claimed under sub-section (1) of S.5. In other words, if the exemption cannot be claimed by invoking sub-section (1) of S.5, the liability to pay the tax automatically gets extracted and the person cannot claim exemption from payment of tax. In such a situation the question of making an enquiry as to whether the vehicle was actually used or not during the relevant period does not arise. Such a situation is covered by another provision in the Act, namely, S.6. In such a situation the question of making an enquiry as to whether the vehicle was actually used or not during the relevant period does not arise. Such a situation is covered by another provision in the Act, namely, S.6. This provision provides for refund of tax and reads as follows: "Where the tax for any motor vehicle has been paid for any quarter or year and the vehicle has not been used or kept for use during the whole of that quarter or year or a continuous part thereof not being less than one month, a refund of the tax at such rates as may, from time to time, be notified by the Government, shall be payable subject to such conditions as may be specified in such notification." In cases falling under S.6, where refund of tax is claimed, on the ground that the vehicle has not been used or kept for use during the whole of that quarter or year or a continuous part thereof not being less than one month, refund of tax for that period can be claimed by establishing non-user for that period. S.6, therefore, can be invoked after payment of tax when refund is claimed after investigation. The question of such an investigation does not arise before payment of tax. Though some investigation is contemplated in subsection (2) of S.5 of the Act, that investigation is for the purpose of verifying as to whether the exemption claimed is not true. If after claiming exemption for non-user the vehicle has been actually used, the authorities could make an enquiry to find out whether contrary to the intimation given, the vehicle has been used. But that does not provide for enquiry being made when the owner of the vehicle does not satisfy the requirements of sub-section (1) of S. S. S. S speaks of exemption of tax which can be claimed only by satisfying the requirements of S.5 (1), R.10 and Form G. The question of establishing non-user, if these provisions are not complied with, does not arise. Such a person must pay tax and if in fact there is non-user the provision available under the Act is one in S.6, namely, for refund of tax. That, in our opinion, is the scheme of the Act. Such a person must pay tax and if in fact there is non-user the provision available under the Act is one in S.6, namely, for refund of tax. That, in our opinion, is the scheme of the Act. Unfortunately the scheme of the Act was not placed before the learned single judge and the attention of the learned single judge was not drawn to the provisions of S.6. We have, therefore, no hesitation in taking the view that it is not permissible for the authorities to make an investigation as to whether there has been non-user in cases where exemption is claimed without satisfying S.5 of the Act. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.