Simon Philip vs Agrl. Income Tax & Sales Tax … on 17 March, 2008

0
37
Kerala High Court
Simon Philip vs Agrl. Income Tax & Sales Tax … on 17 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 21712 of 1999(I)



1. SIMON PHILIP
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. AGRL. INCOME TAX & SALES TAX OFFICER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN

 Dated :17/03/2008

 O R D E R
                             P.R.RAMAN, J.
                   ---------------------------
                      O.P.NOS.21712 OF 1999 &
                              9983 OF 2002
                  ----------------------------
                Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008

                                 JUDGMENT

Both these original petitions are filed by the same assessee and

common issue arises and hence they are disposed of by a common

judgment. In O.P.No.21712/99 the relief sought for is to quash Exts.P5 and

P6 and also for a direction to complete the assessment for the assessment

years 1996-97 and 1997-98 at the compounding rate as per Section 13 of the

Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991.

2. According to the petitioner, he owns a rubber plantation besides he

has 1/3 right in the family property standing in the name of his later father.

The other co-owners are his mother and brother. During the previous year

1995-96 he applied for compounding under Section 13 of the Agricultural

Income Tax Act and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment as per

Ext.P1 allowing the application. Subsequently, the lst respondent proposed

to withdraw the compounding granted under Ext.P1 on the ground that the

petitioner is not eligible for compounding in respect of an extent of 1.72

acres of land, which even according to him, is admittedly owned by him

-2-
O.P.Nos.21712/99 & 9983/2002

along with others and since no compounding application was made by

other co-owners. That was challenged by filing O.P.No.10318/96.

Subsequently, for the year in question assessments were completed

rejecting his claim for compounding under Section 13 of the Act. In view

of the pendency of O.P.No.10318/96 he straight away approached this

Court by filing the original petition seeking to quash the assessment

orders for the two years as referred to above.

3. Similar is the case in O.P.No.9983/2002. The assessment order

in respect of which the assessment has completed is sought to be quashed

in the said original petition. It is now brought to my notice that

O.P.No.10318/96 was already disposed of by this court by judgment dated

31st August, 2005 leaving open the right of the petitioner to file his

objection. There was also a direction that the matter will be heard by the

authorities concerned and dispose of the same in accordance with law. As

such the main ground on which the original petition is filed before this

Court circumventing the statutory remedies is not now available to the

petitioner, in view of the disposal of O.P.No.10318/96 in the manner as

indicated above, without going into the merits of the contention raised.

Since the challenge made in these writ petitions is against the assessment

orders made by the Assessing Officer concerned, the petitioner has got an

efficacious or alternative remedy by filing an appeal. But since these writ

-3-
O.P.Nos.21712/99 & 9983/2002

petitions were admitted and were pending before this Court, in view of the

pendency of the earlier O.P.No.10318/96, I think it is only proper that the

petitioner be given an opportunity to move before the Appellate Authority

challenging the orders impugned in these two original petitions. True that

because of the pendency of these matters before this court the statutory

time for filing the appeal has already expired. But it has to be noticed

that the petitioner has been bona fide prosecuting the matter by filing a

writ petition, which was entertained by this Court and granted an interim

stay also. In the circumstances, the period during which these two writ

petitions are pending will stand excluded from the period of limitation in

filing the appeal. The petitioner is given an opportunity to file appeals

within 30 days from today and if such appeals are filed, the same shall be

disposed of on merits, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a

period three months from the date of receipt of the appeals. The interim

stay granted by this Court will continue, till the disposal of the appeals. If,

however, no such appeals ares filed within the aforesaid period, it will be

open to the authority to proceed pursuant to the assessment orders

impugned in these original petitions.

Original Petitions are disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMAN,
Judge.

kcv.

-4-
O.P.Nos.21712/99 & 9983/2002

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here