Wa/2330/2007 Of C.t.rajan v. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 3RD ASWINA 1929 WA.No. 2330 of 2007 --------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20332/2007 Dated 03/07/2007 ) APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- C.T.RAJAN, M/S.CHEMMANRIKKAT PLANTATIONS, SHORNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN ADV. SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANNARKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 2330 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25[th] September, 2007 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge inW.P.(C) No.20332 of 2007, dated 3[rd] July, 2007. The orders of assessmentpassed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer for the assessment years 2005-06and 2006-07 and the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are thesubject matters of the Writ Petition. The claim of the assessee is that he isentitled for the benefit of the notification issued by the State Government inS.R.O.No.392 of 2005, dated 22[nd] April, 2005 and subsequent notifications issuedby the State Government. The claim of the assessee was rejected by theassessing authority. The assessee has filed a rectification application before theassessing authority to rectify the apparent mistakes on the face of the assessmentorders passed by the assessing authority. Even before the assessing authoritycould consider the application/petition filed by the assessee for rectification of theso called mistakes in the orders of assessment for the assessment years 2005-06and 2006-07, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing the Writ Petition. 2. In our view, the learned single Judge, without going into the merits ordemerits of the petitioner's case, should have relegated the petitioner to prefer anappeal, if he so desires, if for any reason, he is aggrieved by the orders ofassessment passed by the assessing authority for the assessment years 2005-06and 2006-07. 3. The Statute creates appropriate forum for an aggrieved person toquestion the correctness or otherwise of the orders of assessment passed by the assessing authority. By-passing that remedy, petitioner cannot approach thisCourt by filing a Writ Petition questioning the orders of assessment passed exceptin exceptional cases which have been stated by the Apex Court in any number ofcases. 4. The learned Judge has rejected the Writ Petition on the merits of thecase. In our opinion, that need not have been done by the learned single Judge. 5. In view of the above, we dispose of this appeal. If for any reason, thepetitioner is aggrieved by the orders of assessment passed and the recoverynotices issued pursuant thereto for the aforesaid assessment years, he is atliberty to question the same by filing appeal before the appropriate forum. Ifsuch an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority will consider the same on meritswithout being influenced by any one of the observations made by the learnedsingle Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU)Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN)Judge