Wp(C)/36322/2005 Of Varkey Job v. Agrl.income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2007 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1928 WP(C).No. 36322 of 2005(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VARKEY JOB, KARIMATTOOM, RUBY NAGAR, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX OFFICER, VYTHIRI AT KALPETTA. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), CHANGANACHERRY. BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FORTHE YEAR 1995-96 DATED 30.3.2001 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT U/S. 7 OF THERR ACT DATED 2.3.2005 EXT.P3 DO. DO. U/S.34 DO.DO. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.12.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 36322 OF 2005-------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2007 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 recovery proceedings forrecovery of arrears of agrl. income tax due for 1995-96. According tothe petitioner, 10 acres of cardamom land was purchased by him onlyin the year 1995 and income therefrom was assessed along withproperties in Changanacherry under which there was no liability.Therefore, according to him, the tax again assessed is illegal andarbitrary. So far no counter affidavit is filed. I do not think there isany need for this Court to consider the case on merits because if thepetitioner's claim is correct, it is for the second respondent to withdrawthe demand. Petitioner is directed to approach the second respondentwith assessment orders issued earlier for the second respondent toverify the records and if necessary after calling for details from thefirst respondent, issue fresh proceedings to the petitioner rectifying themistake, if any, or otherwise issue fresh proceedings demanding tax, ifany, payable by the petitioner. Interim orders granted by this Court will be in force for two months from now, within which time secondrespondent will issue fresh proceedings after conducting enquiry asabove. Further recovery will be based on revised proceedings to beissued by the second respondent, and that too only if petitioner is liable.W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge