ORDER : 1. The State Government, the Regional Transport Officer and officers thereunder who are defendants 1 to 4 in a suit for declaration and consequential injunction against the demand notice issued for payment of tax arrears on a motor vehicle, came up with this appeal. 2. One of the substantial questions came up for consideration is whether it is permissible to impose liability to pay tax which fell due after the sale of the vehicle on the prior owner of the vehicle. 3. It is by virtue of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976, the liability to pay tax cast upon the transferee, possessor and person in control of the vehicle. Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 extracted below for reference: “ 9. Liability to payment of tax by person succeeding to the ownership, possession or control of motor vehicle - (1) If the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before payment of the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax. (2) Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall be deemed to affect the liability to pay the said tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. The words used “nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to affect the liability” denotes an existing liability lies on the registered owner who was possessing the vehicle or was in control of the vehicle. It is by virtue of Section 9(1), the liability imposed upon the transferee, the person in possession of the vehicle and the person in control of such vehicle for the tax arrears fell due before its transfer, diversion of possession or termination of control of the vehicle. The wording used in Section 9(1) “remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before payment of the tax has transferred” stands for the liability accrued prior to sale, dispossession and termination of control of the vehicle. The wording used in Section 9(1) “remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before payment of the tax has transferred” stands for the liability accrued prior to sale, dispossession and termination of control of the vehicle. A clear distinction was drawn with respect to the tax payable prior to any sale, dispossession and termination of control of vehicle from that of tax which would accrue after such sale, dispossession and termination of control of vehicle in Section 9 (1) and 9(2) of the said Act based on the liability. Section 9(1) deals with tax payable prior to any sale, dispossession or termination of control of vehicle and the liability thereof. It has nothing to do with tax which would accrue after such sale, dispossession or termination of control of vehicle. Section 9(2) also silent about the tax which would accrue after any sale, dispossession or termination of control of vehicle, presumably on the reason that the said area and liability already dealt with under general law casting liability on the owner of the property to pay tax and under Section 3(3) of the said Act. It is by virtue of Section 9(2), a deeming provision, the liability to pay tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle was saved. What is saved under Section 9(2) is really the liability to pay tax which would accrue prior to any sale, transfer of ownership, dispossession or termination of control of such vehicle, an existing liability on the owner of the property by virtue of Section 3(3) of the said Act and the general law governing liability attached with the owner of property. There is nothing to do with Section 9(1) or Section 9(2) of the Act in the matter of tax which would accrue after any sale, transfer of ownership, dispossession or termination of control of vehicle and the liability thereof. The tax which would accrue after the sale, transfer of ownership, dispossession or termination of control of vehicle, hence cannot be brought under the purview of either Section 9(1) or Section 9(2) of the said Act. Section 9(1) and Section 9(2) of the said Act covers only the liability to pay tax which would be payable prior to any sale, transfer of ownership, dispossession or termination of control of vehicle. Section 9(1) and Section 9(2) of the said Act covers only the liability to pay tax which would be payable prior to any sale, transfer of ownership, dispossession or termination of control of vehicle. By virtue of Section 9(1) the liability to pay such tax extended to the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle, apart saving the liability of owner who has transferred the vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle by virtue of a deeming provision, sub-section (2) to Section 9 of the Act. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Vibhuraj vs. Joseph, 2007 (1) KLT 853 had applied Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 and extended the liability to pay tax which would accrue after the sale on the person who had transferred the vehicle by way of sale and found that the liability of registered owner and the person who is in possession or control of the vehicle is joint and several and the registered owner is equally liable to pay the vehicle tax accrued after the sale of vehicle. 6. In a subsequent decision by another Division Bench of this Court in Sebastian C. vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2010 (1) KHC 950 : AIR 2010 Ker. 75 had apportioned the liability by applying Section 9 and Section 3(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 and directed to pay the tax which fell due when the owner was in possession and the financier was directed to pay the tax accrued for the period the financier was in possession of the vehicle. The relevant portions in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the said judgment are extracted below for reference: “(4) Procedure for levy, collection and recovery of motor vehicle tax are contained in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. S.3(2) makes it clear that liability for payment of tax is on the registered owner or the person in possession and control of the vehicle, who by the fiction introduced in the said Section is deemed to be keeping the vehicle for use in the State. S.3(2) makes it clear that liability for payment of tax is on the registered owner or the person in possession and control of the vehicle, who by the fiction introduced in the said Section is deemed to be keeping the vehicle for use in the State. Therefore, liability under S.3(3) is joint and several and both the appellant and 4th respondent are liable for payment of tax that was due after 17.12.1997 when the vehicle was repossessed by the financier-4th respondent. In other words, appellant being the registered owner as well as the person in possession and control of the vehicle was solely liable for payment of arrears of tax from 01.07.1996 to 17.12.1997. (6) It is very clear that the purpose of S.9 is to ensure recovery of tax even after sale or transfer of possession of a vehicle that was in arrears of tax. Without exonerating the registered owner who incurred the liability for tax during the period of use under sub-clause (2) of S.9, sub-clause (1) of it makes the transferee or the person who takes over possession and control of the vehicle, also liable for payment of arrears of tax. Therefore, the departmental authorities are entitled to recover the arrears from the person who has purchased or got possession of the vehicle that was in arrears of tax. Therefore, arrears of tax from 01.07.1996 also could in fact be recovered from the 4th respondent by virtue of operation of S.9(1) of the Act. We have already found liability of arrears of tax on the appellant from 01.07.1996 to 31.12.1997 and if the appellant fails to remit the same, recovery will be made without delay. We do not think the 4th respondent can escape from liability for payment of tax from 01.01.1998 till 31.01.1999 because during that period they were in possession and control of the vehicle and the same is an admitted fact.” 7. It was also found that the liability under Section 9 is joint and several and extended to the transferee, possessor and person in control of the vehicle, apart from the liability of the person who has transferred the vehicle, who was possessing or in control of the vehicle. It was also found that the liability under Section 9 is joint and several and extended to the transferee, possessor and person in control of the vehicle, apart from the liability of the person who has transferred the vehicle, who was possessing or in control of the vehicle. There is a clear deviation from the legal position laid down by the earlier Division Bench in Vibhuraj's case (supra) in Sebastian's case (supra) by another Division Bench, in the matter of interpretation of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 and its application. 8. In a subsequent decision by a Single Bench of this Court in M/s. Motor and General Finance Ltd. vs. Deputy Transport Commissioner, Tvm. and Others, 2010 (2) KHC 708 considered the question whether a financier who repossessed the vehicle from its owner would come under the purview of definition of the term “operator” for the purpose of Section 3 and 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 and found that he is liable to pay arrears of tax even for the period prior to repossession of the vehicle. 9. The Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Sundaram Finance and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3478 : 1999 KHC 1466 had considered the expression “operator” within the meaning of Section 2(4) of Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1958 (67 of 1958) in a case of hire purchase and found that the financier who is in possession of the vehicle on hire purchase on default of payment of instalment cannot be treated as “operator” of vehicle under Section 2(4) of the Bombay Act (1958). But the term “operator” not defined anywhere in the Kerala Act. 10. But the term “operator” not defined anywhere in the Kerala Act. 10. From the above said discussions, it is necessary to refer the question for the consideration of another Division Bench as to whether it is permissible to extend the liability to pay tax accrued after the sale or dispossession or termination of control of vehicle on the person who sold the vehicle, who have been dispossessed, ceased to have control of the vehicle, (2) whether the said liability is joint and several and co-extensive with the transferee or the person in possession or the person in control of the vehicle, (3) what would be the legal position with respect to the liability to pay tax accrued prior to the sale or dispossession or termination of control of the vehicle (4) whether Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 would cover the liability to pay tax which would arise after sale, dispossession or termination of control of vehicle and (5) whether the decision in Vibhuraj's case (supra) reflects the correct law in the matter of interpretation of Section 9 of the said Act and its application. 11. Registry is directed to place the matter before the Honourable the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.