JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—The State has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 26-2-2013 passed by the learned Single Judge , who directed the payment of yearly tax on motor cab in five monthly installment with a further direction that on payment of first installment, the writ petitioner shall execute an indemnity bond for the balance amount and on payment of first installment the vehicle shall be released to the writ petitioner. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that insofar as demand of motor vehicle tax is concerned, the statute does not provide for payment of tax in installments, this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the payment of admitted tax due in installments and further direct that on payment of first installment, the vehicle seized shall be released. The said order is contrary to statute and therefore it requires to be set aside. 2. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the tax liability is not disputed, but for reasons beyond control of the respondent, he could not pay the tax. The learned Single Judge was justified in directing the Authority to release the vehicle on payment of one installment and sought for dismissal of appeal. 3. In the light of the aforesaid facts and contentions, the point for consideration is: Whether the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is properly exercised by the learned Single Judge to grant installment of motor vehicle tax due and to release the vehicle on payment of one installment? 4. From the facts set out, the liability to pay the tax is not disputed. The statute provides for seizure of vehicle when tax is not paid. Therefore, the seizure of vehicle by the Government for non-payment of tax cannot be found fault with which is in accordance with law. On the contrary, the provision regarding appeal mandates, no appeal shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority unless admitted tax is paid. If tax liability is disputed discretion is given to the Courts either to direct to furnish security for the said amount or for payment of the said amount. But under no circumstances the admitted tax could be directed to be paid in installment under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power of this Court is plenary in nature. If tax liability is disputed discretion is given to the Courts either to direct to furnish security for the said amount or for payment of the said amount. But under no circumstances the admitted tax could be directed to be paid in installment under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power of this Court is plenary in nature. It is well-settled that power has to be exercised within the four corners of law. It cannot be exercised against the provision of law or to defeat the provision of law. In the matters of tax, unless the tax due is paid, the Government cannot run its administration. The question of payment of tax in installments would not arise, at any rate, the admitted tax. This Court can direct the authority to release the seized vehicle, if it is found the seizure is not valid. If it is a valid seizure, that cannot be interfered with and more so, no direction can be issued to release the vehicle on receipt of one installment. In the circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and appeal is allowed. In view of allowing the appeal on merits, all I.As. are dismissed.