JUDGMENT : In these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge a demand for tax alleged to have been evaded by availing the benefit of reduction of road tax applicable to the educational institutions. W.P.(C) Nos.15955 of 2012 and 15143 of 2014 are filed by the Kerala Transport Company, a company engaged in motor transport business. W.P.(C) No.15725 of 2012 is filed by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, a Trust which runs educational institutions. 2. The Kerala Transport Company (hereinafter referred to as the 'KTC'), operate contract carriages as well as the stage carriage buses. However, these buses cannot be used beyond the period of 15 years. They have a huge transport network and have also engaged large number of employees under them. They transferred some of their buses to the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan on condition that these buses will be operated and managed by the KTC themselves. The above transfer was effected without any sale consideration, which according to the KTC is a part of their social obligation as they also then may not able to use these vehicles as contract carriage or stage carriage due to its age. The Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan agreed to pay certain fixed amount per day to the KTC. In the year 2003, it was around Rs.1,400/- per day. The Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan used these buses for transportation of students on payment of transportation fee by the students and in turn paid the agreed amount to the KTC. This system can be termed as Transfer and Management of Operation of Buses (for brevity, TMOB). Thus, the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan is the registered owner as entered in the RC Book and operation and management of the buses will be done by the KTC. 3. Based on the particulars in the Registration Certificate, the Motor Vehicles Department levied reduced tax applicable to the educational institutions. The Department later initiated proceedings on the premise that transfer of RC Book is a clandestine deal to evade motor tax applicable to the contract carriage other than the motor vehicles used for educational institutions. 4. There is no dispute to the fact that transfer of registration in the name of Bharatiya Vidaya Bhavan was without any sale consideration. 5. In order to understand the complexity of the legal issue, it is appropriate to refer the relevant provisions involved in this matter. 4. There is no dispute to the fact that transfer of registration in the name of Bharatiya Vidaya Bhavan was without any sale consideration. 5. In order to understand the complexity of the legal issue, it is appropriate to refer the relevant provisions involved in this matter. Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 is the charging section. Section 3 therein states that the 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. Schedule Clause 7(ii) stipulates the tax applicable for motor vehicles permitted to ply as contract carriage and solely used as educational carriages. The tax applicable for such vehicles having 20 seats including driver is Rs.500/- quarterly; and in respect of the vehicles having more than 26 seats, the quarterly tax is Rs.1,000/-. Under Section 2(11) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an 'Educational Institution Bus' is defined, as follows: “'Educational Institution Bus' means an omnibus, which is owned by a college, school or other Educational Institution and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or Staff of the Educational Institution in connection with any of its activities.” 6. The definition as above, clearly indicates that the bus must be owned by the educational institution and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the educational institutions in connection with any of its actitivies. Thus, to claim a reduced rate of tax applicable to the educational institutions, it must be shown that the bus is owned by the educational institutions and used for the purpose of educational institutions. Both the conditions must be satisfied. 7. There are two sets of vehicles involved in this case. One set of vehicles which is originally owned by the KTC and transferred to the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and thereafter, by an agreement, the operation and management is exclusively given to the KTC. The other set of vehicles acquired by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan by their own funds. They entrusted these vehicles to the KTC for management and operation. The model styled as TMOB is applicable to the first set of vehicles. 8. The Department does not dispute the fact that these vehicles in question are being used for the purpose of educational institution. 9. They entrusted these vehicles to the KTC for management and operation. The model styled as TMOB is applicable to the first set of vehicles. 8. The Department does not dispute the fact that these vehicles in question are being used for the purpose of educational institution. 9. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines 'owner' as follows: “'Owner' means person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such a person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” 10. The definition as above would show that there are two classes of owners. One class, by registration of their name in the RC Book and the other class is the person in possession of the vehicles under an agreement, even though, registration certificate stands in the name of another person. 11. The 'ownership' as referred in the first set of case, certainly, refers to the person, who purchased the vehicles from another person, who can claim 'ownership' under general law. Under the Sale of Goods Act, there are two elements which constitute sale. One is, payment of price and the other is, delivery. The price denotes consideration. The KTC have no case that they have given the buses to the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan by way of a gift or donation. No sale consideration was passed in the matter. Therefore, there is no sale in the eye of law. When there is no sale as referrable under the Sale of Goods Act, merely because registration stood in the name of a person, that does not confer such person any right or ownership over the buses. After referring to the Roman Law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madras v. M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Co., (Madras) Ltd. [AIR 1958 SCC 560] observed in paragraph-15 as follows: “The concept of sale, as it now obtains in our jurisprudence, has its roots in the Roman Law. Under that law, sale, emptio venditio, is an agreement by which one person agrees to transfer to another the exclusive possession (vacuam possessionem tradere) of something (Merx) for consideration. Under that law, sale, emptio venditio, is an agreement by which one person agrees to transfer to another the exclusive possession (vacuam possessionem tradere) of something (Merx) for consideration. In the earlier stages of its development, the law was unsettled whether the consideration for sale should be money or anything valuable. By a rescript of the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian of the year 294 A.D., it was finally decided that it should be money, and this law is embodied in the Institutes of Justinian, vide Title XXIII. Emptio venditio is, it may be noted, what is known in Roman law as a consensual contract. That is to say, the contract is complete when the parties agree to it, even without delivery as in contracts re or the observance of any formalities as in contracts verbis and litteris. The common law of England relating to sales developed very much on the lines of the Roman law in insisting on agreement between parties and price as essential elements of a contract of sale of goods. In his work on “Sale”, Benjamin observes: “Hence it follows that, to constitute a valid sale, there must be a concurrence of the following elements, viz., (1) Parties competent to contract; (2) mutual assent; (3) a thing, the absolute or general property in which is transferred form the seller to the buyer; and (4) a price in money paid or promised” (Vide 8th Edn., Page 2). In 1893 the Sale of Goods Act, 56 and 57 Vict. c. 71 codified the law on the subject, and S.1 of the Act which embodied the rules of the common law runs as follows: 1(i) “A contract of sale of goods is a contract. Whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price. There may be a contract of sale between one part owner and another. (2) A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. (3) Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer the contract is called a sale; but where the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled the contract is called an agreement to sell. (4) An agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses or the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court after adverting to the development of law on the concept of sale, further observed in paragraph-16 that in order to constitute a sale, it is necessary that there should be an agreement between the parties for the purpose of transferring title to goods and it must be supported by money consideration, and as a result of such transaction, the property must actually pass to the hands of the transferee. It was further observed therein that in the absence of any elements as above, there can be no sale. 12. In the light of the above, it is clear that mere transfer of vehicles through registration transferring the name of one person to another person does not confer any title of ownership to the transferee over the buses. In this case, both the elements, 'consideration' and 'delivery' are absent. 13. The learned Government Pleader raised an argument based on second category of ownership based on 'possession'. It is argued that if the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan is treated as the registered owner, the KTC has to be treated as the owner based on possession. In law, possession denotes control. To have control, one must acquire interest in the subject. 14. In the class coming under the second category to claim 'ownership', there must be transfer of possession under the agreement. There was no transfer of possession by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan in respect of the vehicles originally owned by the KTC, in the sense that, that would arise only when there exists any transfer of interest by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Since the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan did not acquire any ownership of the buses, no question of transfer of possession would also arise. Thus, the KTC continued to be the owner, even though, the name of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan is registered in the Registration Certificate. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others [ (1979) 4 SCC 274 ], observed as follows: “Word 'possession' is not purely a legal concept but a polymorphous term which may have different meanings in different contexts. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others [ (1979) 4 SCC 274 ], observed as follows: “Word 'possession' is not purely a legal concept but a polymorphous term which may have different meanings in different contexts. “Possession”, implies a right and a fact; the right to enjoy annexed to the right of property and the fact of the real intention. It involves power of control and intent to control. Therefore, the test for determining “whether a person is in possession of anything is whether he is in general control of it.” 16. In terms of the schedule to claim a reduced rate of tax, it must be shown that the vehicle is used as an educational institution bus. If the bus is an educational institution bus, it must be in the ownership of the educational institution as seen from Section 2(11) of the Motor Vehicles Act. If the ownership of the bus is not vested with the educational institution, the bus used by the Educational Institutions cannot be treated as an educational institutional bus even though it is solely used for the purpose of educational institution. 17. It appears that there is a demand for an additional tax in the light of Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act would apply only when there is an alteration, used or proposed to be used as to cause the vehicle to become the vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable. Therefore, the additional tax can be levied only when the use or alteration attracts higher tax. The levy in such case, is by imposing additional tax of a sum equal to the difference between the tax already paid and the tax which is payable in respect of such vehicle. Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, therefore, cannot be applied to claim the additional tax also in a case where alteration or use attracts lower tax. Therefore, the respondents cannot levy additional tax from the petitioners. Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act postulates that such alteration or use must cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which higher rate of tax is payable. Therefore, the respondents cannot levy additional tax from the petitioners. Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act postulates that such alteration or use must cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which higher rate of tax is payable. Thus, the use or alteration must result in the vehicle to make liable for higher tax. In this case, the alteration or change or use only causes the owner liable to pay reduced rate of tax. Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is intended to prevent unauthorised alteration or change of user without paying higher rate of tax. To attract this provision, it must be shown that the vehicle before alteration or change of user was paying lower rate of tax. In this case, it happened vice versa. 18. In regard to the vehicles owned by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and entrusted with the KTC for operation and management, there is nothing on record to show that the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan has parted with exclusive possession to the KTC. Merely because, the KTC is operating the buses on behalf of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, it cannot be concluded that the possession is transferred to the KTC. 19. As adverted earlier 'possession' denotes 'control'. One can be in possession of the buses and another, management of the buses. If that be so, in respect of the vehicles owned by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, they are entitled to concessional rate of motor vehicles tax. 20. Thus, the upshot of the above discussion is that the KTC is not entitled to concessional rate of motor tax in respect of the vehicles which have been transferred in the name of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. The Motor Vehicles Department is entitled to collect tax applicable to contract carriages in respect of the aforesaid vehicles. However, the Department is not entitled to levy additional tax in terms of Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. 21. The Motor Vehicles Department cannot demand higher rate of tax from the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan in respect of the vehicles which are owned as per the Registration Certificate and possessed by them, not by way of transfer of registration from the KTC. 22. 21. The Motor Vehicles Department cannot demand higher rate of tax from the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan in respect of the vehicles which are owned as per the Registration Certificate and possessed by them, not by way of transfer of registration from the KTC. 22. In the light of the above, the writ petitions filed by the KTC are partly allowed, modifying the impugned orders and directing the respondents to issue revised demand excluding the additional tax demanded under Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The writ petition filed by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan is allowed holding that they are not liable to pay higher tax demanded from them. Therefore, the impugned orders as against them are also set aside. No order as to costs.