Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 1302 of 1979 is the appellant in the Writ Appeal. He purchased vehicle KLD 4745 in public auction. He got a sale certificate on 29-11-1976 from the seller. According to him he transported the vehicle by another goods vehicle to his place on 30-11-1976. He filed an application under S.5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (in short, the Act) for exemption from payment of fax for the period from 29-11-1976 to 1-1-1978. Exemption was granted for the first quarter ending by 31-3-1977. For the rest of the period exemption was negatived. In the O. P. the petitioner assailed the order passed by the statutory authorities, evidenced by Exts. P2, P4 and P6. Kochu Thommen J. by judgment dated 8-3-1982, dismissed the O.P. The learned judge held that S.5 does not postulate an application for more than one quarter unless it is for one full financial year and that one has to make an application for the first month or the first two months of a quarter or for one quarter or for the whole financial year. The learned judge also held that if exemption is sought for any other period, such application is not consistent with the terms of S.5, and as application which does not fit in with the said provision cannot be effective or sustainable. In this view, the plea of the petitioner was negatived and the O.P. was dismissed. The petitioner in the O.P. has come up in appeal. 2. We heard counsel for the appellant, as also the learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the respondent. S.5(1) of the Act is to the following effect: "5. In this view, the plea of the petitioner was negatived and the O.P. was dismissed. The petitioner in the O.P. has come up in appeal. 2. We heard counsel for the appellant, as also the learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the respondent. S.5(1) of the Act is to the following effect: "5. Exemption from tax: (1) In the case of a motor vehicle which is not intended to be used or kept for use daring 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 not 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." Under S.3 of the Act a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for me in the State at the rate specified in the 1st Schedule of the Act. S.4 specifies the manner and method of payment of tax for the issue of licence. S.4 (1) says that the tax levied in sub-s. (1) of S.3 shall be paid in advance within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed, by the registered owner or person having possession or control of the motor vehicle for a quarter or year, at his choice, upon a quarterly or annual licence to be taken out by him. It is this obligation cast on a registered owner or possessor of a vehicle under S.3 read with S.4 of the Act, that is sought to be exempted under S. S of the Act. A plain reading of S.5 of the Act shows that it does not postulate an application far more than one quarter unless it is for one full financial year. An application for exemption should be for the first month, or for the Ist and second months of a quarter, or for the whole of a quarter or year. A plain reading of S.5 of the Act shows that it does not postulate an application far more than one quarter unless it is for one full financial year. An application for exemption should be for the first month, or for the Ist and second months of a quarter, or for the whole of a quarter or year. It is evident that the application in this case is for the period between 29-11-1976 to 1-1-1978. It is not for the first month or the first two months of a quarter or for a quarter or for the whole financial year. In such circumstances, the conclusion is irresistible that the application filed for exemption is not in accord with S. S of the Act. However, the authorities have given exemption for the quarter ending with 31-3-1977. Whether it is warranted in terms of S.5 of the Act itself is greatly in doubt. Bat that fact cannot clothe the petitioner with any right to plead that he should be grafted exemption for the whole period, 29-11-1976 to 1-1-1978, notwithstanding the fact that the application itself is not in accord with S.5 of the Act. We concur with the learned Single Judge and hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. This Writ Appeal is without merit. It is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.