Wp(C)/33187/2007 Of E.k.vasan v. Agrl.income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1929 WP(C).No. 33187 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ E.K. VASAN, GOKULAM ESTATE, CHUNDALE P.O., WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, VYTHIRI AT KALPETTA. 2. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX, KOZHIKODE. 3. KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), VYTHIRI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 33187 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 12[th ]day of November, 2007 J U D G M E N T In relation to the assessment year 1990-91, Ext.P1 order ofassessment was issued under the Kerala Agricultural Income TaxAct. Petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate authority.That was rejected by Ext.P2. Petitioner pursued the matter in appealbefore the Tribunal by filing Ext.P4 along with Ext.P5 application forcondonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay wasrejected by Ext.P3 order dated 6.9.2001. Against Ext.P3 order,petitioner filed TRC No.571/01. That was also rejected by Ext.P7order dated 5.9.2007. Subsequently, revenue recovery proceedingshave been initiated against the petitioner. Thereupon petitioner filedthis writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order, which as I have alreadystated, was the subject matter of TRC No.571/01. 2. Petitioner contends that since the TRC was rejected as notmaintainable, this writ petition is maintainable. In my view hiscontention is misconceived. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that thisCourt rejected the TRC for the reason that the finding rendered by WPC NO 33187/07 Page numbers the Tribunal in Ext.P3 was purely on a question of fact and couldnever be construed as a question of law. It is on that basis the TRCwas held to be not maintainable. After inviting an order rejecting theTRC as above, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the verysame order by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE WPC NO 33187/07