JUDGMENT : Ziyad Rahman A.A., J. The petitioner is the registered owner of a contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-46G-3339 and he is aggrieved by the demand of motor vehicle tax for the said vehicle. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition are as follows: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or commanding the 1st respondent to take steps for realisation of Motor Vehicle Tax arrears on the vehicle mentioned in Exhibit.P3 viz. vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-46G-3339 from the 3rd respondent following the dictum laid down in the matter of NPR Finance Ltd Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2002(1) KLT 591 and also taking note of the provisions of Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or commanding the 1st respondent to proceed against the vehicle mentioned in Exhibit.P3 for realization of tax arrears due on the said vehicle. (iii) Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents And (iv) To pass such orders or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice. 2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The vehicle referred to above, was purchased by the petitioner after availing a credit facility from the 3 rd respondent- financier. According to the petitioner, due to various reasons, including the lockdown declared by the Government with effect from 24.03.2020 owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not profitably operate the said vehicle and it resulted in defaults in repayment to the 3 rd respondent financier. According to the petitioner, as a consequence of the same, the financier had taken possession of the vehicle forcefully on 25.02.2022 from the petitioner. While taking possession of the vehicle, the original registration certificate of the vehicle along with the original permit which were kept inside the vehicle, were also taken by the financier. Even though complaints were submitted by the petitioner before the police, it evoked no positive response. 3. While taking possession of the vehicle, the original registration certificate of the vehicle along with the original permit which were kept inside the vehicle, were also taken by the financier. Even though complaints were submitted by the petitioner before the police, it evoked no positive response. 3. Later, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 notice by the financier, intimating that the vehicle was sold to a third person for a sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/ on 31.05.2022 and after adjusting the said amount towards the liability of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.16,47,985/- was demanded as the balance amount outstanding. An objection was submitted by the petitioner before the 1 st respondent against such transfer as per Ext.P2 and acting upon Ext.P2, the 1 st respondent blacklisted the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the tax for the vehicle was paid only till 31.03.2020 and the fitness certificate expired on 20.10.2022. As the petitioner apprehended that the tax liability would be mulcted upon the petitioner, despite the fact that the vehicle was taken possession by the 3rd respondent financier, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the reliefs referred to above. 4. A counter affidavit was submitted by the 3rd respondent denying the contention of the petitioner that they had taken possession of the vehicle forcefully and they relied upon the letter of surrender issued by the petitioner. They also averred that the sale of the vehicle was conducted after the vehicle was surrendered by the petitioner. The liability to pay the tax was also denied by the 3 rd respondent. 5. I have heard Sri.V.R.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Mohammed Rafiq, Learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), Smt.Reshmitha R.Chandran, learned Government Pleader and Sri.R.Bindhu, learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent. 6. The question that arises for consideration pertains to the liability of the petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle, to pay the tax in respect of the vehicle in question. It is an undisputed fact that the tax liability that remains unsettled, is for the period pertaining to 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 as is evidenced from Ext.P4 notice issued by the Motor Vehicles Department. One of the specific contentions raised by the learned Special Government Pleader is that, by virtue of the statutory stipulations contained in Section 9(2) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the petitioner being registered owner, cannot be absolved from the liability. One of the specific contentions raised by the learned Special Government Pleader is that, by virtue of the statutory stipulations contained in Section 9(2) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the petitioner being registered owner, cannot be absolved from the liability. On the other hand, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held liable to pay the amount for any period after 25.02.2022, the date on which the vehicle was taken possession by the 3 rd respondent financier. 7. Before going into the questions that arise from the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. As far as the levy of tax is concerned, the same is contemplated under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. The relevant provisions therein, which are applicable to the facts of this case are Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) to Section 3, which is as follows: “3. Levy Tax.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, on and from the date of commencement of this Act, 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; Provided that no such tax shall be levied on a motor vehicle kept by a dealer in, or manufacturer of, such vehicle, for the purpose of trade and used under the authorisation of a trade certificate granted by the registering authority. Provided further that in respect of a new motor vehicle of any of the classes specified in items 1,2,6,7(i)(b),7(i) (c),10(iii) and 11(i) of the Schedule, there shall be levied, from the date of purchase of the vehicle, one-time tax at the rate specified in Annexure I, at the time of first registration of the vehicle and thereafter tax shall be levied at the time of renewal of registration of such vehicle or on the expiry of the life time tax already paid at the rate specified in the Schedule 2 as per fifth proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 Provided also that in respect of old motor cycles specified in item (1), old three wheelers specified in item (2) and old motor cars specified in item 11(i) of the Schedule, there shall be levied a tax in advance for a period of five years after the expiry of the period in respect of which tax has been paid, at the rate specified in Annexure II and for new goods carriages specified in item (3)(i)(a) to (3)(i)(e) and (3)(ii)(a) to (3)(ii)(e), new Autorickshaws specified in item 7(i)(a) 2 [and 7(i)(aa) and new e- rikshaws specified in item 7(i)(ab) there shall be levied a tax in advance for a period of five years at the rate specified in Annexure II, at the time of first registration of the vehicle and thereafter tax shall be levied for five years or for one year at the rate specified in the 2 eighth proviso to sub-section (1) of section 4. Provided also that in respect of new Stage Carriages registered or assigned a new registration mark or altered from any category other than Stage Carriage, there shall be levied a tax based on the floor area of the vehicle at the rate specified in item (iv) of serial number 7 of the Schedule. (2) The Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Gazette, increase the rate of tax specified in the Schedule: Provided that such increase shall not in the aggregate exceed fifty percent of such rate. (2) The Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Gazette, increase the rate of tax specified in the Schedule: Provided that such increase shall not in the aggregate exceed fifty percent of such rate. (3) The registered owner of, or any person having possession or control of, a motor vehicle shall, for the purposes 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.” 8. Yet another provision relevant is Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, which reads as follows: “9. Liability to payment of tax by person succeeding to the ownership possession or control of motor vehicles .- (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 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 vehicles.” (*highlighted and underlined for emphasis) 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision rendered in N.P.R. Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala ( 2002 (1) KLT 591 ) and Motor & General Finance Ltd. (M/s.) v. Deputy Transport Commissioner, Tvm. and others ( 2010 (2) KLT 1032 ). The learned Special Government Pleader relied on T.K Vibhuraj v. E.M Joseph and Others ( 2007 (1) KLT 853 ), Rakesh Credits Ltd. v. State of Kerala ( 2012 (4) KLT 406 ) and Aswathy Kumar v. Registering Authority, Palakkad (WP(C).No.1697 of 2014). 10. On carefully analysing the aforesaid statutory provisions, it can be seen that, Section 3 (1) of the KMV Taxation Act deals with the levy of tax, and the said provision is conspicuously silent about the person who is liable to pay the motor vehicle tax. 10. On carefully analysing the aforesaid statutory provisions, it can be seen that, Section 3 (1) of the KMV Taxation Act deals with the levy of tax, and the said provision is conspicuously silent about the person who is liable to pay the motor vehicle tax. On the other hand, the incidence of tax is “on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the state”. This would indicate that, the tax is on the motor vehicle, which is actually put into use or kept with the intention to be used. This Court in Vakiyath Koya and Others v. State of Kerala and Others ( 2022 (3) KLT 540 ) has held in the manner as follows ; “11. ……the burden of tax under the Act is not necessarily on the use of the vehicle on the roads, but the liability falls, even on vehicles kept ready for use on roads. No manner of interpretation is required to come to the conclusion that even if a vehicle is not actually used on the roads, the tax liability will be incurred, the moment it is kept ready for use on roads.” The fact that, the tax is leviable on the actual use or for keeping the vehicle for sale, is very clear from the first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 3, which excludes the dealer or a manufacturer of such vehicle, from the obligation to pay tax, who only keeps the vehicle as part of their trade. 11. Sub-Section (3) of Section 3, provides the details of the persons who are liable to pay tax, on account of the use of the motor vehicle or for keeping the vehicle for use. Here also, Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 gives emphasis to the “use or to keep the vehicle for use” and the registered owner of the vehicle or any person having possession or control of the vehicle, is deemed to use or keep such vehicle for use. The emphasis on the “use and to keep the vehicle for use” is evident from the exemption from payment of tax contemplated in Sub- Section (3) of Section 3, which would be available during the period for which, no tax is payable under subsection (1) of Section 5 of the KMV Taxation Act. The emphasis on the “use and to keep the vehicle for use” is evident from the exemption from payment of tax contemplated in Sub- Section (3) of Section 3, which would be available during the period for which, no tax is payable under subsection (1) of Section 5 of the KMV Taxation Act. Section 5 deals with the exemption from the payment of MV Tax during the period where, the vehicle is “not intended to be used or kept for use”. Here again, the said exemption could be availed of by the registered owner or the persons having possession and control of the vehicle. Thus, from the joint reading of the above provisions, it is evident that the tax is payable on the actual use of the vehicle or when the vehicle is kept for use and such liability has to be imposed, upon the person, who is the registered owner of the vehicle or who is in actual possession or control of the vehicle. It is to be noted that the word “or” is used in between “the registered owner” and “any person having possession or control”, which indicates the disjunction of both these terms. The word 'or' is normally used as a disjunctive. The use of the word 'or' in a statute manifests the legislative intent of the alternatives prescribed under law. This view has been adopted by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions including Fakir Mohd. v. Sita Ram [(2002) 1 SCC 741], G.P. Ceramics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh [ (2009) 2 SCC 90 ]. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr [(2009) 1 SCC 610], the Apex Court observed, “ The word `or' is disjunctive. No doubt, in some exceptional circumstances, the word `or' has been read as conjunctive as meaning `and', where the context warranted it. But the word `or' cannot obviously be read as referring to a conditional alternative, when such a condition is not specified.” 12. In M/S Shree Sai Palace v. State of U.P. and Others, [2024 SCC OnLine All 7769], the High Court of Allahabad has interpreted the term ‘or’ in the following words; “6. When the word ‘or’ is used in a statute, it serves as a disjunctive conjunction, indicating two or more alternatives. Each option presented is to be considered independently. In M/S Shree Sai Palace v. State of U.P. and Others, [2024 SCC OnLine All 7769], the High Court of Allahabad has interpreted the term ‘or’ in the following words; “6. When the word ‘or’ is used in a statute, it serves as a disjunctive conjunction, indicating two or more alternatives. Each option presented is to be considered independently. It is crucial to recognize that the disjunctive nature of “or” precludes its interpretation as a conjunctive conjunction, such as “and”. Unlike, “and”, which implies a requirement for the simultaneous fulfilment of multiple conditions, “or” allows for flexibility and choice by permitting compliance with any one of the alternatives presented….. 7. Courts have consistently upheld the disjunctive nature of “or” in statutory interpretation, adhering to the principle of giving effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in the statutes. This principle, known as the plain meaning rule or the literal rule of interpretation, emphasizes the importance of interpreting statutes based on their plain and ordinary meaning, as understood by the average person reading the text of the statute. Moreover, the disjunctive function of “or” in statutes is essential for upholding principles of fairness, equity, and access to justice. By offering alternative paths or options, statutes accommodate diverse individual needs and situations, promoting inclusivity and mitigating potential disparities or injustices. This is particularly significant in areas of law concerning rights, benefits, and entitlements, where the flexibility provided by “or” ensures that legal provisions can be applied in a manner that reflects the realities and complexities of human experiences.” Thus, the only conclusion possible is that, when the vehicle is in actual possession or control of a person other than the registered owner, such person would exclude the registered owner. Of course, such possession or control cannot be temporary in nature but it must be of a substantive nature. 13. Now when coming to Section 9 of the Act, it can be seen that, the said provision operates in a different situation. Sub Section (1) of Section 9 comes into play, in a situation where, the person liable to pay tax, has transferred the vehicle or has ceased to be in possession and control of the vehicle, at a time when the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid. Sub Section (1) of Section 9 comes into play, in a situation where, the person liable to pay tax, has transferred the vehicle or has ceased to be in possession and control of the vehicle, at a time when the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid. In such circumstances, the person to whom the ownership has been transferred or the person who secured possession or control of such vehicle, would be liable to pay the said tax. Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 further clarifies that, nothing in Sub-Section (1) shall be deemed to affect the liability of the person who transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of the vehicle to pay the “ said tax” The expression “said tax” used in Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 indicates the tax payable as per subsection (1) of the said Section, which is, the tax that remains unpaid by any person liable to pay tax, at the time of transfer of ownership or cessation of possession or control, of the vehicle. It is to be noted that, in Sub-Section (1) of Section 9 also, while imposing the liability to pay tax upon the transferee of the vehicle or the person in possession of the vehicle, the expression used is “the said tax” , which evidently refers to the tax remaining unpaid, at the time of transfer or cessation of possession, as referred to in the beginning of Sub-Section (1) of Section 9. 14. While examining Section 9 of the Act, yet another important aspect to be noticed is that, nowhere in the Section 9, the expression “registered owner” is used, but on the other hand, the expression used is “any person liable for payment” and the situation referred to therein is, the transfer of vehicle by such person or such person ceases to be in possession and control of the vehicle, at a time when the tax remains unpaid. The said aspect has to be considered in the light of Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that enables the financier of the vehicle, whose name is entered into the particulars of Registration Certificate, to get a fresh Registration Certificate in their name, without the help of the registered owner, in case, the financier had taken possession of the vehicle, owing the defaults committed by the Registered owner in repaying the loan. Section 51 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, reads as follows: “(5) Where the person whose name has been specified in the certificate of registration as the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement, satisfies the registering authority that he has taken possession of the vehicle [from the registered owner] owing to the default of the registered owner under the provisions of the said agreement and that the registered owner refuses to deliver the certificate of registration or has absconded, such authority may, after giving the registered owner an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make (by sending to him a notice by registered post acknowledgement due at his address entered in the certificate of registration) and notwithstanding that the certificate of registration is not produced before it, cancel the certificate and issue fresh certificate of registration in the name of the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement: Provided that a fresh certificate of registration shall not be issued in respect of a motor vehicle, unless such person pays the prescribed fee: Provided further that a fresh certificate of registration issued in respect of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle, shall be valid only for the remaining period for which the certificate cancelled under this sub-section would have been in force.” 15. Thus, it is clear that, once a fresh RC is issued in the name of the financier by following the procedure mentioned above, such a financier would step into the shoes of the Registered Owner. This would mean that, Section 9 is intended to be made applicable to the Registered owner or the person in possession or control of the vehicle, who transferred the vehicle without paying the tax or ceased to be in possession and control of the vehicle before the tax is paid. Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 however, clarifies that, merely because the liability to pay the tax that remained unpaid at the time of transfer of vehicle or cessation of possession or control, was imposed upon the transferee or the person who came in possession or control of vehicle due to such transfer of cessation of possession or control, that would not exonerate the person who was originally liable to pay the unpaid tax. To be precise, by virtue of Sub- Section (2) of Section 9, the transferor or the person who ceases to be in possession or control of the vehicle, would still be held liable along with the transferee, as far as the liability to pay “ the said tax ” , which is, the tax that remained unpaid at the time of transfer, is concerned. 16. Now when coming to the decisions relied on the learned Government Pleader, it is to be noted that, in the decisions in Rakesh Credits Ltd (supra), and N.P.R. Finance Ltd (supra), the petitioners therein were financiers who took possession of the vehicle and sought exoneration from the liability to pay tax, contending that the liability to pay tax in respect of the period prior to the date of re-possession, is on the registered owner. In such circumstances, after referring to the Sections 3 and 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, it was held that the said liability is the joint liability of that of the registered owner as well as the financier, irrespective of the date of taking possession. It is to be noted that, it is a situation clearly governed by Section 9, but whereas, in this case, the question mainly arises is in respect of the liability of the Registered owner for the period after the cessation of possession and control, which is beyond the scope of Section 9. The liability of registered owner in such circumstances was not specifically considered in the said decision. Similarly, in Aswathy Kumar’s case (supra) a learned Single bench of this court was dealing with the liability of the person who purchased the vehicle from the financier who took possession of the vehicle from the registered owner. There also, after referring to Section 9 read with Section 3, it was held that such purchaser cannot be exonerated, as he is also liable along with the registered owner. In the said decision also, the question pertaining to the liability of the registered owner pertaining to the period after the cessation of possession and control of the vehicle was not the issue. In the said decision also, the question pertaining to the liability of the registered owner pertaining to the period after the cessation of possession and control of the vehicle was not the issue. In other words, the issue dealt with in the above decisions were to determine the liability from the point of view of the financier or subsequent purchaser, and not with respect to the liability of the registered owner for the period after the cessation of possession, which could be a distinguishing factor, as a different consideration or yardstick is required, in the light of the incidence of tax contemplated under Section 3 of the Act, which is on the use or on the act of keeping the vehicle for use. 17. In Vibhuraj’s case (supra) , a Division Bench of this court held that, the registered owner will be liable, if, after the sale of the vehicle, he still remains the registered owner of the vehicle. However, the observations therein cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, in view of the fact that, in the said case, this court considered the obligations of a registered owner to take recourse to the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to intimate the transfer of vehicle. Here in in this case, it is not a voluntary transfer, but a case where, the possession of the vehicle was taken by the 3 rd respondent by this court in the said case, Section 50 of the MV Act, imposes an obligation in the event of the transfer of the vehicle. In that case, such obligations were not fulfilled by the registered owner and it was in such circumstances those observations were made. On the other hand, as this is a case of taking possession by the financier, the fact that the petitioner did not follow the procedure contemplated in Section 50 of MV Act, cannot be a ground to reject the contentions. To understand the same, an examination of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is necessary which reads as follows: “50. To understand the same, an examination of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is necessary which reads as follows: “50. Transfer of ownership.—(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,— (a) the transferor shall,— (i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and (ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i) (A) the no objection certificate obtained under section 48; or (B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,— (I) the receipt obtained under sub-section (2) of section 48; (II) the postal acknowledgement received by the transferred if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgement due to the registering authority referred to in section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted; (b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration. (2) Where— (a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or (b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by, or on behalf of, Government, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under sub-section (2) (hereafter in this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section (5): Provided that action under section 177 shall be taken against the transferor or the transferee or the other person, as the case may be, where he fails to pay the said amount. (4) Where a person has paid the amount under sub- section (3), no action shall be taken against him under section 177. (5) For the purposes of sub-section (3), a State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the transferor or the transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle or of the other person in making the application under sub- section (2). (6) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), or an application under sub-section (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration. (6) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), or an application under sub-section (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration. (7) A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority. 18. It is to be noted that Section 50(1) starts with the words “Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred..”. Thus, the procedure contemplated under Section 50 of the MV Act is applicable in a case where, there is transfer of ownership and not in a case of cessation of possession due the act of taking possession by vehicle by the financier. In the case of taking possession by the financier, the procedure to be followed is Section 51(5) of the MV Act, where the obligation is on the Financier. For that reason, the observations made in Vibhuraj’s case (supra) cannot be made applicable to this case. Thus, the only possible view is that, in a case of financier taking possession of the vehicle, the liability to pay the motor vehicle tax for the registered owner would be till the date on which the possession is taken by the financier. 19. The view taken by this court as to the liability of the registered owner, in a case where the vehicle is taken possession by the financier, is fortified by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court in Sebastian C v. State of Kerala and others [ 2010 (1) KHC 950 ]. In the said case, this court specifically held that, the owner would be liable to pay the tax for the period during which he was in possession of the vehicle along with the financier and for the period after taking possession, the financier would be liable. Such observations were made by the Division Bench of this court, after referring to Sections 3 and 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. 20. When the facts and circumstances of this case are analysed in the light of the aforesaid legal position, the following aspects are to be noticed. It is an admitted position that the vehicle was taken possession by the 3 rd respondent on 25.02.2022. 20. When the facts and circumstances of this case are analysed in the light of the aforesaid legal position, the following aspects are to be noticed. It is an admitted position that the vehicle was taken possession by the 3 rd respondent on 25.02.2022. As far as the tax liability which is the subject matter of this writ petition is concerned, the same pertains to 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022. Therefore, by virtue of the stipulations contained in Sub-Section (1) read with Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, the registered owner or the person who is in possession or control of the vehicle shall be liable to pay the tax pertaining to the relevant period. Thus, for the period from 01.07.2021 till 25.02.2022, the liability to pay the motor vehicle tax would fall upon the petitioner herein. Of course, the Sub-Section (1) of Section 9 imposes a liability upon the financier also, with respect to the said period, but Sub- Section (2) thereof does not relieve the registered owner from the liability pertaining to the said period. Therefore, the petitioner who was in actual control of the vehicle till 25.02.2022 cannot be absolved from the liability to pay the tax pertaining to the period until 25.02.2022. As far as the remaining period is concerned, the same has to be recovered from the person who was in possession or control of the vehicle and it is for the registering authority to initiate proper proceedings after issuing notice to the 3 rd respondent. It is necessary because, the 3 rd respondent has a case that the vehicle was subsequently sold to a third person after the vehicle was surrendered by the petitioner. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of holding that the petitioner shall be liable to pay the tax in respect of the vehicle in question till 25.02.2022 only. It shall be open for the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for realizing the tax for the said period. As far as the tax for the subsequent period is concerned, the said issue can be decided after issuing notice to the 3 rd respondent.