Mr. Abdul Khalam V. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and The Deputy Tahsildar Revenue Recovery and The Tahsildar

WP(C)/17846/2012

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Abdul Khalam, the petitioner, who contested the assessment orders related to agricultural income tax and sales tax for the years 2004-05 to 2009-10. The initial assessment was deemed defective by the petitioner, leading to a rectification application (Ext.P2) filed on 01.02.2012. The petitioner faced revenue recovery proceedings, prompting a previous writ petition (W.P.(C).No.6635/2012) which resulted in a judgment (Ext.P4) requiring a 50% deposit of the disputed amount for consideration of the rectification petition. This deposit was later reduced to 25% by a Division Bench (Ext.P5), acknowledging that the petitioner did not hold the entire property during the relevant period. However, the assessing officer's subsequent order (Ext.P6) did not reflect this reduction or the Division Bench's observations, leading to the current writ petition challenging Ext.P6.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690074 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WPC No.6635/2012, WA 625/2012
• Laws Referred To: Agricultural income tax and sales tax
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHOBA EAPEN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH JOHN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Disputed amount; Rectification petition; Revenue recovery; Property Liability
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 153A; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/19TH SRAVANA 1934 WP(C).No. 17846 of 2012 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- MR.ABDUL KHALAM, AGED 50 YEARS THEHANI MANZIL, ATTINGAL, CHIRAYINKEEZHU BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 002. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE CHIRAYINKEEZHU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 304. 3. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE CHIRAYINKEEZHU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 304. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17846 of 2012 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :- EXT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEARS 2004-05 TO 2009-10 DATED 26/3/2010. EXT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RECETIFICATION DATED 1 /2/2012. EXT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 25/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. EXT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/3/2012 IN WPC NO.6635/2012. EXT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 625/2012 DATED 30/3/2012. EXT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/5/2012. EXT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATD 26/3/2012 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LOCAL DELIVERY BOOK. EXT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/6/2012, PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/6/2012, PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/6/2012. EXT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6/6/2012, 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS ' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE amk P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.17846 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2012 JUDGMENT The assessment in the case of the petitioner by the authorities under the 'Agricultural income tax and sales tax' was finalized in respect of the years 2004-05 to 2009-2010 as per Ext.P1 order dated 26.03.2010. According to the petitioner, the said order was defective in several respects and hence Ext.P2 application for rectification was filed on 01.02.2012. 2. On being confronted with the Revenue Recovery proceedings during the pendency of the above proceedings, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P. (C).No.6635/2012, which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment dated 19.03.2012, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the disputed amount to have the 'rectification petition' to be considered and finalized; giving appropriate directions in this regard. The petitioner challenged the said verdict by filing W.A.No.652.2012, which was disposed of as per Ext.P5 by the Division Bench of this Court, observing that the petitioner did not W.P.C. No.17846 of 2012 -2- have the entire extent of property concerned during the relevant period and accordingly, the liability mulcted by the learned Single Judge to effect deposit to the tune of 50% was reduced to '25%', which is stated as complied with. However, Ext.P6 order has been passed by the assessing officer on 21.05.2012 without referring to the above observation made by the Division Bench in Ext.P5, which in turn is sought to be challenged in this writ petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits on instructions, that the issue has been meticulously dealt with by the first respondent while passing Ext.P6, though the verdict passed by the Division Bench vide Ext.P5 has not been specifically referred to. By virtue of the stipulation in Ext.P5, the earlier direction to effect the deposit to the tune of 50% has been reduced to 25%. This in no way tilts the balance in any manner with regard to the examination of the merit involved and as such, no interference is warranted; submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the W.P.C. No.17846 of 2012 -3- other hand that, some positive observations are made by the Division Bench, while reducing the extent of liability from 50% to 25%, holding that the entire property was not in the hands of the petitioner during the relevant time. This aspect has not been adverted to by the first respondent while passing Ext.P6, which hence is ground for challenge. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the first respondent while passing Ext.P6 has adverted only to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No. 6635/2012, while no reference is made to Ext.P5 verdict passed by the Division Bench or as to the observations contained therein. This being the position, it is felt that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent, adverting to all the facts and figures. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider and pass appropriate orders afresh. The proceedings as above shall be finalized in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.C. No.17846 of 2012 -4- The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. The RR proceedings if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time. Writ petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Kp/- "