JUDGMENT : (Johnson John, J.) This second appeal is before us on a reference. The liability to pay tax arrears of the bus bearing registration No. KLG-5247 is the dispute involved. 2. The plaintiff, who is the registered owner of the bus, entered into an agreement for sale of the bus to the 5th defendant on 10.03.1995. As per the terms in the agreement, the plaintiff has to clear all arrears of taxes and liabilities up to the date of the agreement and thereafter, the 5th defendant is liable for the same. After the sale agreement, the 5th defendant was in possession of the bus and in connection with the balance sale consideration, the plaintiff filed a suit, O.S. No. 226 of 1996, against the 5th defendant and the said suit was decreed. While so, the plaintiff received revenue recovery notice relating to arrears of tax on the vehicle for the period from 01.07.1995 to 30.09.1995. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the notice is null and void and that the 5th defendant is liable to pay the tax arrears claimed in the notice 3. Defendants 1 to 4 filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, is liable to remit the arrears of tax. The 5th defendant filed written statement contending that there was no concluded sale and that the possession of the vehicle was returned to the plaintiff due to the intervention of the Circle Inspector of Police, Koyilandy. It is also contended that the plaintiff has not issued the necessary documents for transferring the registration and since the plaintiff repossessed the vehicle, the 5th defendant is not liable to pay the arrears of tax and sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. In the trial court, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked from the side of the plaintiff and no evidence was adduced from the side of the defendants. After trial and hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the suit mainly on the following findings: I. The suit is barred under Section 72 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing any fraud on the part of defendants in initiating the revenue recovery proceedings. II. After trial and hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the suit mainly on the following findings: I. The suit is barred under Section 72 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing any fraud on the part of defendants in initiating the revenue recovery proceedings. II. The demand for arrears of tax is as per the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (‘Act, 1976’ for short) and the said statute create specific forum for appeal and revision and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred. III. Under Section 9 of the Act, 1976, liability to pay tax is joint and several on the registered owner and the person who is in possession or control of the vehicle. 5. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 73 of 1999 before the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode. By the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2000, the First Appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial court dated 20.10.1998 was set aside on the following findings: I. Since the transaction is covered by the Sale of Goods Act, there is absolute sale of the vehicle by virtue of Exhibit A1 agreement. II. Since there is a concluded sale accompanied by handing over of possession of the vehicle, the 5th defendant is liable to pay the arrears of tax for the period after Exhibit A1 agreement. III. It is in evidence that the plaintiff produced a copy of Exhibit A1 before the 4th defendant and the circumstance of the case reveals a collusion between defendant Nos.4 and 5. IV. Even if the notice demanding arrears of tax is passed on merits, the same is illegal and unsustainable, as the plaintiff is not liable to pay any tax arrears on the vehicle for the period after Exhibit A1 agreement. 6. We have heard both sides on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the provisions of the Act, 1976 impliedly bar the jurisdiction of the civil court in the matter? 2. Whether the liabiility of a registered owner to pay tax of the vehicle will cease from the date of transfer of ownership and possession of the vehicle? Point No.1: 7. As noticed earlier, essentially, the dispute involved is regarding the liability to pay tax arrears of the bus for the period after Exhibit A1 agreement. 2. Whether the liabiility of a registered owner to pay tax of the vehicle will cease from the date of transfer of ownership and possession of the vehicle? Point No.1: 7. As noticed earlier, essentially, the dispute involved is regarding the liability to pay tax arrears of the bus for the period after Exhibit A1 agreement. Execution of Exhibit A1 agreement for sale of the vehicle on 10.03.1995 is not disputed. Exhibit A3 is the notice issued by the 4th defendant, Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode, to the plaintiff for personal hearing in connection with the demand notice dated 30.12.1995. 8. As per Section 3(1) of the Act, 1976, a 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. Sub-Section 3 of Section 3 of the said Act provides that the registered owner of, or any person having possession or control of, a motor vehicle shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to use or keep such vehicle for use in the State, except during any period for which no tax is payable on such motor vehicle under sub-Section (1) of Section 5. 9. Sub-Section 1 of Section 9 provides that 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. But, sub-Section 2 of Section 9 provides that nothing contained in sub-Section (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. 10. Section 23 r/w Rule 12 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules shows that any person who is aggrieved by any order of the Taxation Officer or the Regional Transport Officer can prefer an appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area. 10. Section 23 r/w Rule 12 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules shows that any person who is aggrieved by any order of the Taxation Officer or the Regional Transport Officer can prefer an appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area. Section 24 r/w Rule 13 would show that a revision application can be filed before the Transport Commissioner against any order passed in appeal under Section 23. The liability to pay tax on the vehicle is created by the statute and specific authorities are also provided under the statute for levy of tax and also for filing appeal and revision against order demanding arrears of tax. 11. A combined reading of Sections 23 and 24 along with Rules 12 and 13 would show that the Act, 1976 is a self contained code in the matter of determination of liability created by it and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted even without a specific provision. It is well settled that when a particular forum is provided by the statute, that forum alone could decide, as held in Munshi Ram and others v. Municipal Committee [ AIR 1979 SC 1250 ] and Kunjappan v. Toddy Workers’ W.F. Inspector [ 1987 (1) KLT 633 ]. 12. In Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava (dead) by LRs v. Union of India [ AIR 1988 SC 752 ], it was held that wherever a right, not pre-existing in common law, is created by a statute and that statute itself provided a machinery for the enforcement of the right, both the right and remedy having been created uno flatu and a finality is intended to the result of the statutory proceedings, then, even in the absence of an exclusionary provision, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred. In State of Gujarat v. Mer Parbat Ramaji [AIR 1991 GUJARATH 185], it was held that where the statute creates a right or liability, the statute may also create specific forum in which case jurisdiction of the civil court will be impliedly barred, but where the Act provides no machinery, the suit can be entertained by the civil court. 13. The plaintiff filed the suit challenging his liability to pay tax for the vehicle for the period after execution of Exhibit A1 sale agreement in favour of the 5th defendant. 13. The plaintiff filed the suit challenging his liability to pay tax for the vehicle for the period after execution of Exhibit A1 sale agreement in favour of the 5th defendant. The liability to pay tax on vehicle is created by the special statute and the said statute has also created specific forum for appeal and revision and therefore, we find that the jurisdiction of the civil court in the matter is impliedly barred and the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff ought to have raised his grievance before the appropriate forum. Point No.2: 14. The reference was on the ground that there is an apparent conflict on the legal position regarding the liability to pay tax between the decisions of this Court in Vibhuraj v. Joseph [ 2007 (1) KLT 853 ] and Sebastian C v. State of Kerala and others [ 2010 (1) KHC 950 ]. We have already found that the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred in view of the provisions of the Act, 1976 and that the suit itself is not maintainable. Therefore, this point does not arise for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment in A.S. No. 73 of 1999 is set aside and the suit is dismissed.