JUDGMENT :- Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing appellant's challenge against demand of Motor vehicle tax in respect of stage carriage financed by the appellant. 2. The stage carriage bearing registration No.KL10/N 2905 is a 1996 model Tata Bus purchased by the 6th respondent with finance provided by the appellant. Hypothecation in favour of the appellant is endorsed in the registration certificate of the vehicle. However, on account of default in re-payment of installment of loan committed by the registered owner, appellant re-possessed the vehicle on 10-07-2003. Since registered owner committed default in payment of motor vehicle tax from 01-07-2003 onwards arrears of tax were sought to be recovered against the appellant through Ext.P4 demand followed by recovery proceedings which were challenged before the Single Judge, but without success. It is against this judgment writ appeal is filed. 3. We have heard counsel for the appellant and also Government Pleader appearing for respondents. Registered owner of the vehicle from whom appellant took over possession of the vehicle has not entered appearance. The contention raised by the appellant's counsel is that when registered owner is traceable recovery of motor vehicle tax arrears has to be initiated against registered owner and liability of financer or the person in possession of the vehicle arises only in the event of failure to recover the arrears of tax from the registered owner. However, Government Pleader has specifically referred Section 3 (3) and Section 9 (2) of Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act which provide for recovery of motor vehicle tax from either the registered owner or the person in possession and control of the motor vehicle. In this case neither the registered owner nor the appellant has submitted any form-G claiming exemption under Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 10 of the Motor vehicle Taxation Rules for claiming exemption for the period for which tax is demanded. 4. The specific case canvassed by the appellant's counsel is that going by Section 5, form-G claiming exemption under Rule 10 has to be made by the registered owner and not by the person in possession and control of the vehicle. So much so appellant could not file form-G for claiming exemption even after re-possessing the vehicle and therefore tax should not be recovered from the appellant. So much so appellant could not file form-G for claiming exemption even after re-possessing the vehicle and therefore tax should not be recovered from the appellant. Section 5 however provides for filing of G-form for claiming exemption not only by the registered owner but the person in possession or control of the vehicle. For easy reference Section 5 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act is extracted hereunder. "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 of 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." 5. Rule 10 which is the Rule framed under Section 5 (1) specifically provides for filing of advance intimation in form-G for claiming exemption under Section 5 (1) which should reach the registering authority within one week from the date of commencement of the period for which exemption is claimed. On going through the particulars called for in form-G we notice that the most important one is the place where the vehicle is garaged during the period of non-use. Further, the period for which the vehicle is proposed to be kept out of use is also required to be furnished. When the registered owner looses possession or control of the vehicle either by re-possession by the financer or otherwise he will not be in a position to furnish the details called for in form-G. Practically it is not possible for the registered owner to give intimation on matters over which he has no control. Necessarily the person in possession of the vehicle only will know what he intends to do with the vehicle and where he intends to garage the vehicle if it is not kept for use on road any time by him. Necessarily the person in possession of the vehicle only will know what he intends to do with the vehicle and where he intends to garage the vehicle if it is not kept for use on road any time by him. Therefore intimation in form-G necessarily has to be furnished by the person in possession and control for claiming exemption for any period which in this case is appellant- the financer. In fact in our view form-G furnished by the registered owner who has ceased to be in possession and control of the vehicle cannot be entertained unless the particulars contained in form-G are endorsed by the person in possession as binding on him as well. So much so possibly a joint application by the registered owner and the person in possession also may be maintainable. However, it is a mandatory requirement of the scheme that form-G has to be furnished by the person in possession and control of the vehicle because only he who is in possession of the vehicle can furnish the details called for in form-G. Since the appellant has no case that he has furnished any form-G for claiming exemption for any period even after repossessing the vehicle he is not entitled to any exemption from tax. 6. The provisions of Section 3 (3) and 9 (2) are very clear in as much as registered owner and the person in possession and control of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable for payment of tax and the department is entitled to recover the same from either of them. Every financer is entitled to recover from the borrower-owner the motor vehicle tax paid by him for the vehicle after re-possessing from the registered owner along with the debt amount depending on terms of loan agreement. However this does not mean that the financer who is in possession when required to pay the tax can request the department to proceed for recovery of tax from the registered owner, no matter department is statutorily entitled to recover the tax from the registered owner also. We therefore dismiss the writ appeal leaving it open to the appellant to proceed for recovery of arrears of tax paid by them from the registered owner along with balance debt due to them.