Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was a bus operator. He filed form 'G' before the first respondent, claiming exemption from tax in terms of S.5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 for the period from 1-1-1984 to 31-3-1985. On 19-6-1984 he sent Ext. P2 to the first respondent in the following words: "My stage carriage KLE 4578 is dismantled on 19-6-1984 at my shed at Cheranallur and sold the parts as scrap; I am therefore surrendering herewith the Registration Certificate of the vehicle for cancellation. Kindly cancel the Registration Certificate at your earliest". By Ext. P3 the first respondent wrote to him as follows: "As per your letter enquiry has been conducted and it revealed that the S/ C KLE 4578 was dismantled on 19-6-84. Tax in respect of this vehicle was exempted upto 31-3-84 as per the 'G' form submitted by you on 30-12-83. Though the 'G' form was submitted for the period from 1-1-84 to 31-3-85 it cannot be reckoned a 'G' form for the further period from 1-4-84 onwards, since it does not complied S.5 (1) of K.M.V Taxation Act 1976. As the S/C KLE 4578 has dismantled on 19-6-84 and route permit was replaced to KEE 4048 on 16-6-84 tax at stage carriage rate is due for Q E 30-6-84. Hence you are directed to remit Rs. 5544/-(Tax Rs. 3360/-Addl. Tax 1680/-surcharge 504/-) and produce the proof of remittance within 7 days of receipt of this letter, failing which R. R. steps will be taken without further notice." Despite the petitioner's objections contained in Ext. P4, proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 have been initiated against him (Ext. P5). The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 & P5. 2. The case of the respondents, as stated in the counter affidavit and as submitted at the bar by the Government Pleader, is that form 'G' application for exemption was not made for the financial year or a part thereof as mentioned under S.5 read with the definition of "year under S.2 (1), but for a period of 15 months commencing from 1-1-1984 to 31-3-1985. The petitioner was, therefore, granted exemption only for the first three months of the total period of 15 months, and not for the balance period upto the date of Ext. P2. The petitioner was, therefore, granted exemption only for the first three months of the total period of 15 months, and not for the balance period upto the date of Ext. P2. This, in my view, was an extremely technical view, much to the disadvantage of the assessee and not warranted by the provisions of the Act. 3. S.5 (1) reads: "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 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." (emphasis supplied). The "year" is defined under S.2(1) as follows: "Year' means the financial year; and 'quarter' means the first, second, third or fourth three months of an year The petitioner's application for exemption was for 15 months beginning from 1-1-1984 to 31-3-1985. Into that period fell a quarter plus a financial year. The petitioner's request for exemption was for a quarter plus a financial year. Why he was exempted for the quarter alone, and not also for the whole of the following financial year, I fail to comprehend. The argument of the respondents that the petitioner roust either choose a quarter or a financial year, but not both, does not seem to be warranted by the provisions of S.5(1) which says" during the first month or the first and second months of a quarter, or the whole of a quarter or year." There is no reason, therefore, why a person cannot apply for the composite period of comprising both the quarter and the financial year, if on the facts of a case exemption is warranted for the total period in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. There is no case that the petitioner was not entitled to the exemption as such, except that he did not make the application correctly. 4. I do not agree with the reasoning of the first respondent. Accordingly, I set aside Exts. P3 and P5. 5. The Original Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Allowed.