High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala And Others vs J. Padmavathy Amma. on 23 November, 1987

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala And Others vs J. Padmavathy Amma. on 23 November, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1990 185 ITR 176 Ker


JUDGMENT

K S PARIPOORNAN J. – The State is the appellant. The respondent is the widow of one Subramanya Bhat. She filed O.P. No. 2918 of 1980 and attached exhibit P-1 demand and attachment notice, issued to her, dated May 14, 1980. Ganapathy Bhat, who was an owner of various items of property, owned 6.68 acres of land in Sy. No. 99/2 in Kuttikole Village out of that, he had assigned 2.50 acres to one Subramanya Bhat on March 21, 1972. The petitioner èin the original petition is the widow of Subramanya Bhat. Ganapathy Bhat was an assessee under the Kerala Agriculture Income-tax Act, 1950. He was assessed to pay agricultural income-tax for the period up to 1972-73. He committed default. It is for the said amounts due that exhibit P-1 notice was sent to the respondent in this writ appeal. The learned single judge quashed exhibit P-1 in so far as it related to 2.50 acres of land transferred to the respondents husband, Subramanya Bhat. Hence, the state has come up in appeal.

We heard counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader. Admittedly, Ganapathy Bhat who is an assessee under the Agricultural Income-tax Act is liable to pay arrears of tax. The properties assigned to Subramanya Bhat, the transferee, can be proceeded against only if the conditions necessary therefor are satisfied, as enjoined in the proviso to section 23 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act. The learned single judge found that it was not shown that the transferor (Ganapathy Bhat) cannot be found or that the tax assessed on the transferor cannot be recovered from him. This is a condition precedent to invoke the proviso to section 23 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. In the absence of such requisite, recovery proceedings against properties purchased by Subramanya Bhat and still in the hands of his widow, the respondent herein, was held to be incompetent and illegal. The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the learned single judge are justified in law.

No interference is called for in this appeal. The appeal is without any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.