Op/30638/1999 Of Leelamma Mathew v. Addl.agrl.income Tax Officer,Kottayam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 30638 of 1999(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- LEELAMMA MATHEW & OTHERS,ROSHAN HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR.P.O.,KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER T.A. GEORGE. BY ADVS. MR.JOHN RAMESH, MR.K.I.JOHN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1.ADDL. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER,KOTTAYAM.KOTTAYAM. *ADDL.R2.GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES),SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. REP. BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES),SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. *ADDL. R2. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 12/06/07 INC.M.P.NO.20525/01. R1 & ADDL.R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER (TAXES) MR. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 30638/1999-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND VELLAPPALLY PLANTATIONSLIMITED DTD. 01/07/1987. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.46/91-92 REJECTING APPLICATION FORCOMPOSITION DTD. 01/01/97. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE AGRL.INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENTYEAR 1991-92. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 DT.19/12/98. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 DT.19/12/98. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 DT.19/12/98. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 DT.19/12/98. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/04/94. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF VELLAPPALLY PLANTATIONS PVT.LTD DTD. 21/03/2000 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1995-96. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF VELLAPPALLY PLANTATIONS PVT.LTD. DTD. 21/03/2000 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1996-97. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF VELLAPPALLY PLANTATIONS PVT.LTD. DTD. 21/03/2000 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1997-98. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF VELLAPPALLY PLANTATIONSPVT. LTD. FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31/03/1995. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ================== O.P.No. 30638 of 1999 ================== Dated this the 30[th] day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T In this original petition the petitioners challenge the orders ofassessment under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act for the years1995-96 to 1998-99. On 23.3.2009, after hearing the original petitionfor some time, I passed the following order: “The petitioners, while running the Vellappally Plantations onlease, were assessed to agricultural income tax till 1993-1994. In 1994,the lease was terminated. According to the petitioners, although they didnot intimate the Agricultural Income Tax Officer about the termination oflease, the lessor had intimated, pursuant to which the lessor had beenassessed to agricultural income tax for the estate in question. Now thepetitioners have also been assessed to agricultural income tax in respectof the property for the years 1995-1996 to 1998-1999. The petitionershave now produced documents evidencing assessment of agriculturalincome tax on the lessor in respect of the same estate along withI.A.No.4266 of 2009. The petitioners would submit that two personscannot be assessed to agricultural income tax on the same property forthe same year. The learned Government Pleader submits that these documentshave been produced only today and the Government Pleader may begranted some time to ascertain the veracity of the same.” The learned Government Pleader submits that these documentshave been produced only today and the Government Pleader may begranted some time to ascertain the veracity of the same.” 2.When the matter was taken up today, the learnedGovernment Pleader submitted that for deciding the question as towhether in respect of the same property for the same assessmentyears, the lessor had already been assessed, the matter has to bescrutinized again. The learned Government Pleader suggested that ifthe petitioner files an application under Section 42 of the KeralaAgricultural Income Tax Act, the same would be considered by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer on that point. The learned GovernmentPleader points out that since the petitioner has filed this originalpetition within the time prescribed for filing an application underSection 42, there cannot be any difficulty for considering the saidapplication now, if filed by the petitioner. In the above circumstances,this original petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall file an application under Section 42 of theKerala Agricultural Income Tax Act within two weeks, along with acertified copy of this judgment before the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st]respondent shall consider tosrshe application as one filed within timeunder Section 42 and consider and pass appropriate orders on thesame, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two monthsfrom the date of receipt of the application, after affording anopportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Needless to say, till ordersare thus passed, no coercive proceedings shall be taken against thepetitioner for recovery of the disputed tax. sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J.==================O.P.No. 30638 of 1999-V ================== J U D G M E N T 30[th] March, 2009