Op/18180/2001 Of V.v.murali v. Agrl Income Tax & Sales Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 OP.No. 18180 OF 2001(L) PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.V. MURALI, PALLIVASAL CARDAMOM PLANTATITONS,KALLAR, VATTIAR P.O., IDUKKY DISTRICT. BY ADVS. M/S. A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR & ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1.AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX OFFICER, ADIMALY. ADIMALY. 2.COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MUSEUM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 29180/2001 IN O.P. 18180/2001 //TRUE COPY // KNC/- P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = =O.P. NO. 18180 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008.J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges the interest levied for delayed remittance of taxdue under the Agricultural Income Tax Act. As per the proviso to Section37(4) the Commissioner has got the power to reduce or waive the interestpayable by any person, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient reason forthe non-payment of tax in time. 2. For the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 the balance due is asper revised assessments after appeals were disposed of by the AppellateAssistant Commissioner. According to the petitioner, he could not remit thedues since he has sold the estate in 1993 and there was no agriculturalincome to clear the dues. For the year 1993-94 the balance due as per therevised assessment could not be remitted in time since according to thepetitioner, the revised assessment was received only in January, 2001. Itwas also pointed out that there was a stay granted by the Tribunal oncondition to pay Rs.25, 000/- which had been complied with. 3. The waiver of interest is a statutory power vested on the authority concerned. Admittedly amounts were due and payable. The question iswhether the reasons advanced is supported by any materials produced andconvincing and whether the rejection of the claim for waiver of interest isin any way liable to be interfered with. 4. When admittedly payments were delayed the only question isregarding the reason advanced for causing the delay. The fact that hisestate was sold in 1993 was not found to be a good reason for the nonremittance of the agricultural income tax due in time. Petitioner has notproduced any materials to show that he faced with any financial difficultiesor inability to raise funds despite earnest attempts to raise the same. Theauthority having exercised its discretion in the matter, such orders cannot bereviewed unless it is found to be perverse. In the absence of any such pleaand materials produced I find no ground for interference.Dismissed. P.R. RAMAN,(JUDGE) knc/- O.P. 18180/2001 :3: P.R. RAMAN, J. O.P. NO. 18180/2001 J U D G M E N T 1.9.2008.