Wa/1487/2012 Of Income Tax Officer v. K. Mahin Kallatra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2014/13TH POUSHA, 1935 WA.No. 1487 of 2012 ----------------------------- [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.13297/2006 DATED 20/01/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT] ................. APPELLANTS: -------------------- 1.INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD -1, KASARAGOD.WARD -1, KASARAGOD. 2.THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER,KASARAGOD.KASARAGOD. 3.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KANNUR.KANNUR. BY SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- K. MAHIN KALLATRA,BARA, MANGAD,UDMA (VIA),KASARAGOD. BY SRI.S.ARUN RAJ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.A.No.1487 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3[rd] day of January 2014 J U D G M E N T SHAFFIQUE,J This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The writ petition isfiled by the respondent herein challenging Ext.P11 noticeinforming the petitioner that the properties attached as perExt.P7 to P9 will be sold. Ext.P7 to P9 were notices issued on31/12/2002 attaching the properties specified therein, forrecovery of amounts as arrears of tax. The writ petitionercontended that the proposed sale of properties is in violationof Rule 68B of the 2[nd] schedule to Income Tax Act 1961. Thispermits sale of attached properties only within three yearsfrom the end of the financial year in which the assessmentorder had attained finality. The end of the financial yearwith reference to orders of attachment as well as when theassessment order attained finality was on 31/03/2003 and W.A.No.1487/2012 2 since three year period expired on 31/3/2006, the proposalfor sale is illegal. 2.Before the learned Single Judge, Revenue reliedupon a circular issued by the department which inter aliaextended the three year period to four year period. Thelearned Single Judge found that the circular issued by thedepartment cannot amend the statutory provision andtherefore Rule 68B has to be applied in letter and spiritand when the period for sale expired on 31/3/2006 thenotice for sale of properties is bad in law. 3.Having heard the learned Standing Counselappearing on behalf of the Revenue, we do not think that adifferent view can be taken from the opinion expressed bythe learned Single Judge. It is submitted that a similar issueis pending before the Supreme Court. But, as matters standnow, having regard to the facts and situation arising in thepresent case, no grounds are made out to take a differentview from the judgment of the learned Single Judge. W.A.No.1487/2012 3 We find no merit in the above appeal and accordinglythe same is dismissed. (sd/-) (MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr