JUDGMENT : P.M.Manoj, J. The writ petition is preferred being aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P6 notice for the initiation of Revenue Recovery proceedings against the petitioner. Such challenge is on the premise that, during the alleged period of tax arrears, the petitioner was not in custody of the vehicle in question. 2. It is stated, the petitioner is the owner of a Mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-13/B-124. He transferred the vehicle to one Muhamad Rafi for a consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-. On payment of the balance consideration on 01.12.2011, the entire documents with the vehicle were handed over to the said Muhamad Rafi. Thereafter, only on receiving notice from the Sub Inspector of Police, Payyannur, the petitioner came to know that the lorry was seized on 18.03.2012 while it was involved in the sand mining activity. In the notice, the petitioner was directed to produce the R.C book of the vehicle. Thereafter, a further notice was also issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and filed a statement contending that he had already transferred the vehicle and hence, he may be exempted from further proceedings. Even thereafter, it was informed by the 1st respondent to the petitioner that the tax from 01.01.2012 to 31.03.2015 is due and in failure of such payment, revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated as per Ext.P6 notice. 3. The petitioner challenges the same on the background that he had transferred the vehicle to one Muhammed Rafi on 01.12.2011 itself and thereby he is not responsible for such payment of tax for the alleged period between 01.01.2012 to 31.03.2015. In support of his contention, the petitioner relies on the provisions of Section 9(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). In sub section (1) of Section 9 it is stated 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 the payment of the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has caused 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.” 4. It is further contended that as per Circular No. 31/89 of the Transport Commissioner dated 20.12.1989, it is clarified that the tax liability remains with the owner in whose name the vehicle stands registered. Circular stipulates that, in case of disputes, notice of hearing date shall be given to the interested parties by the adjudicating authority fixing a specific date and time. All the parties in dispute shall be heard simultaneously so that the contentions of one party can be countered or clarified by the other. It is further clarified that if the possession of the vehicle has been admittedly changed by the buyer, steps may be taken for realisation of the arrears from the possessor. 5. In the case on hand, it is contended by the petitioner that he had transferred the vehicle to a third person as per Ext.P1 sale deed, thereby the respondents cannot recover the tax from the petitioner alone. Respondents will have to issue notice to the purchaser of the vehicle as well. It is further contended that as per Ext.P4, it was intimated to the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the entire documents pertains to vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-13/B-124 have been transferred to the purchaser, one Muhammed Rafi. 6. Moreover, it is stated that the issue involved in this case is covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in NPR Finance Ltd. V. State of Kerala [ 2002 (1) KLT 591 ]. As per Ext.P1 the petitioner sold his vehicle and it is evident from Ext.P4 statement submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate that pursuant to issuance of notice as per Ext.P3, he had sold the vehicle to one Muhammed Rafi, Thayathukallummal House. Therefore, the respondents are bound to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner that the vehicle is not in his possession during the period of arrears of tax. Under such circumstances, Sec.9(1) of the Act is applicable whereby the person who is in possession of the vehicle is liable to pay the tax. Since this being a question of dispute, the 1st respondent shall initiate steps under Circular No.31/89 dated 20.12.1989 wherein it is specified the method of assessment of taxes in Cases of Disputes. Circular No.31/89B states that: “There may be cases of disputes regarding ownership or possession of the vehicle normally the tax liability rests with the owner in whose name the vehicle stands registered. Circular No.31/89B states that: “There may be cases of disputes regarding ownership or possession of the vehicle normally the tax liability rests with the owner in whose name the vehicle stands registered. The liability of the owner for payment of tax will not absolve by his intimation that he sold the vehicle to somebody. If the possession of the vehicle has been admittedly changed, steps may be taken for realisation of arrears from the said possessor. In cases of disputes notice for hearing shall be given to the interested parties by the adjudicating authority fixing a specific date and time. All the parties in dispute shall be heard simultaneously so that the contentions of one party can be countered or clarified by the other. All disputes in relation to the liability to pay tax shall be disposed of without delay by a formal order, setting forth therein the nature of contentions, conclusions of the authority and the reasons which weighed with the authority in coming to that conclusion. In other words, it should be a speaking order, which would be enable the aggrieved party to prefer appeal to the Appellate Authority.” 7. Heard Sri.Jayakumar Namboodiri, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sayed M.Thangal the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 8. Going by the aforementioned contentions it appears that the issue involved in this case is partly covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in NPR Finance Ltd.'s case (supra) as well as the decision rendered by the Larger Bench in Jomon M. Arackal V. Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha Taluk and Others [ 2015 (1) KHC 1 ]. The relevant portion of in Jomon M.Arackal's case (supra) is also extracted hereunder:- "In the light of the above discussion, it can be seen that there is, in fact, no conflict between the views taken by the Full Bench in Abdurahiman's case (Supra) and the referring Full Bench in Jomon's case (Supra), inasmuch as while the former bench was concerned with cases where the detention of the vehicle in police custody was for non-payment of tax under the Act, the latter bench was concerned with a case where the detention of the vehicle in police custody was for an offence other than nonpayment of tax under the Act. We do not, however, agree with the observations of the Full Bench in Jomon's case (Supra), that would suggest that even in a case where the vehicle is in police custody for non-payment of tax due under the Act, the person claiming exemption need not follow the procedure of filing Form G as it would be impossible of performance. We are of the view that the provisions granting exemption in a taxing statute have to be strictly construed and, if a person is not able to comply with the statutory conditions for claiming exemption from tax, it is a clear indication of the fact that the statute never intended to grant an exemption in such cases. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following manner; (i) In cases where the vehicle is held in the custody of the police or other authorities for non-payment of tax due under the Act, a claim for exemption from payment of tax for the period during which the vehicle is in such custody can be made only in terms of Section 5 of the Act, read with Rule 10 of the Rules. In such cases, the claim for exemption will have to be preferred through the filing of an application in Form G as mandated under Rule 10 of the Rules; (ii) In cases where the vehicle is held in the custody of the police or other authorities for offences other than nonpayment of tax due under the Act, a claim for exemption from payment of tax for the period during which the vehicle is in such custody can be made in terms of Section 22 of the Act, read with Clause 27 of SRO 878/1975. In such cases, there will be no need to file an application in Form G, as mandated under Rule 10 of the Rules; (iii) In either event, it will be open to an assessee under the Act to pay the tax demanded and seek a refund of the same, in terms of Section 6 of the Act read with Rule 15 of the Rules, by establishing that the vehicle in question was not used in the State on account of it being in the custody of the police or other authorities.” Based on our answer to the issues referred to this Bench, we allow Writ Appeal No.20/2008 and Writ Petition Nos.29555/2009 5664/2013 and 7597/2013 by declaring that the writ petitioners therein will not be liable to pay motor vehicles tax for the vehicles concerned, for the period during which the vehicles were in the custody of the police or other authorities for offences other than non-payment of tax due under the Act. The demand notices issued to the writ petitioners in the said cases are consequently quashed. As far as Writ Petition No.24912/2010 is concerned, however, we note that the vehicle belonging to the writ petitioner was seized for nonpayment of tax under the Act and the petitioner was served with demand notices for motor vehicles tax for the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 and 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, during which the vehicle was under custody for the said offence. Although the petitioner maintains that he had filed the necessary G forms for the said period, the respondents dispute the said submission. Under the said circumstances, we deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the appellate remedy under the Act, against Ext.P2 order that is impugned by him in the writ petition. If the petitioner files an appeal against Ext.P2 order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the appellate authority shall consider the same on merits, based on the law laid down in this judgment, and after verifying the factual particulars as regards the filing of G Forms by the petitioner for the period in question. 9. 9. The afore decision clarified that, in cases where the vehicle is held in the custody of the Police or other authorities for offences other than non-payment of tax due under the Act, a claim for exemption from payment of tax for a period during which the vehicle is in such custody can be made in terms of Section 22 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, r/w Clause 27 of SRO 878/1975. In such cases, there will be no need to file an application in Form G, as mandated under Rule 10 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1975. 10. In response to that, the learned Government Pleader submitted that, even if the vehicle is in custody, the petitioner is bound to file an application under Form G or otherwise he will have to approach the Government under Section 22 of the Act. 11. Similarly, Section 9(1) of the Act also applicable in this case as clarified by the division bench in NPR Finance Ltd.'s case (supra) wherein it is held: “it is evident from the above mentioned provision 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 or 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. Since there is such clear provision in the Act, we are of the view that financier who is in control of the vehicle is liable to pay the tax in respect of the motor vehicle if unpaid.” 12. This position is considered under a situation where the vehicle was repossessed by the financier. Here in the case on hand, the vehicle was transferred to a third person as per Ext.P1 agreement which is further testified by Ext.P4 statement submitted by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate consequent to the proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act'). 13. Moreover, the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the police while it was involved in sand mining activity. 13. Moreover, the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the police while it was involved in sand mining activity. It was not for the evasion of tax, the vehicle was seized by the police, but it is evident from Ext.P3 that the said vehicle was engaged in the illegal transportation of river sand on 18.03.2012 at 6.30 hours near KSEB Office, Payyannur Amsom. The illegal removal/transportation of river sand without valid documents is an offence under the Act, 2001. 14. Hence, the issue to be decided is whether the erstwhile owner of the vehicle is liable to pay tax as prescribed under Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976. The petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle during the alleged period of arrears of tax, that is between 01.01.2012 to 31.03.2015 as is evident from Exts.P1 and P4. However, the question of compliance of statutory formalities while transferring the vehicle is a question to be left open. Further the vehicle was in the custody of the police as the same was involved in illegal transportation of river sand and it was in the custody of the police from 18.03.2012. Only after ascertaining these issues, the petitioner can be mulcted with liability of paying tax as per Ext.P5. For that limited purpose, Ext.P5 memo is set aside and directed the 1st respondent to comply with the direction in Circular No.31/89 dated 20.12.1989 and also consider Section 9(1) of the Act, in the light of the findings in NPR Finance Ltd.'s case (supra). Therefore, the 1st respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner, the purchaser of the vehicle as well as the respective police authorities and fix a date for hearing and reassess the tax. Only thereafter, the liability if any, can be fixed on the petitioner. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.