Case LawHigh Court › O.p v. State Of Kerala And Others,[1997(...

O.p v. State Of Kerala And Others,[1997(7) Ktr 128 (Ker

High Court 18 Feb 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
O.p v. State Of Kerala And Others,[1997(7) Ktr 128 (Ker
Date of order
18 Feb 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In O.p v. State Of Kerala And Others,[1997(7) Ktr 128 (Ker, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 9747 of 1998(I) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. PADMANABHA BHAT, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMA BHAT, KOREKKANA HOUSE, UBRANGALA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK & DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEHARI SMT.P.VANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1.THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX OFFICER,KASARAGOD.KASARAGOD. 2.STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT.,GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 9747 of 1998 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 in this original petition.Ext. P1 is only a notice directing the petitioner to file return under theKerala Agricultural Income-tax Act. The petitioner cannot challengeExt. P1 in so far as he is bound to file return even if it is Nil return.Ext. P2 is again a notice under Section 41 of the Kerala AgriculturalIncome-tax Act, 1991, whereby the petitioner had been required todeliver to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer a return in the formattached for the agricultural income assessable for the years 1991-92,1992-93 and 1993-94. Again that also, the petitioner cannotchallenge since the petitioner is bound to file a return under the Act.The petitioner raises a contention that the issue involved is covered bythe decision in K.G. Reshava Bhat v. State of Kerala and others,[1997(7) KTR 128 (Ker.). It is for the petitioner to raise all his contentions in support ofhis return based on that judgment. Therefore, without prejudice tothe petitioner's right to raise all his contentions before therespondents, this original petition is closed. Tds/ Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. [True copy] P.S to Judge.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan