Mr. Abdul Khalam Thehnal Manzil, Attingal, Chirayankeezhu V. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Civil Station, Kottayam and The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Sasthri Road, Kottayam and The Deputy Tahsildar Revenue Recovery, Taluk Office, Chirayankeezhu

WA/652/2012

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Abdul Khalam Thehnal Manzil, the appellant, who contested an agricultural income tax assessment under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that he should only be liable for taxes for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, as he sold the property in question in portions over different dates, not benefiting from the land for the entire assessment period. The government, represented by the Government Pleader, contended that the appellant had not provided necessary documentation or objections to the tax assessment notice. The learned Single Judge had directed the appellant to approach the authorities for a fresh assessment but required a deposit of 50% of the assessed tax. The appellant appealed this decision, leading to the modification of the deposit requirement to 25% by the High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 813032 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUNJACHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH JOHN
• Keywords: Agricultural income-tax; Assessment; Property sale; Tax liability
• Section: 42

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/10TH CHAITHRA 1934 WA.No. 652 of 2012 () IN WPC.6635/2012 --------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.6635/2012 ------------- APPELLANT(S): ----------------- MR.ABDUL KHALAM THEHNAL MANZIL, ATTINGAL, CHIRAYNKEEZHU. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686002. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVEMNUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & V. Chitambaresh, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 652 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2012 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. The appellant approached the learned Single Judge aggrieved by the order of assessment as per Ext.P7 dated 26.03.2010 under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. 2. According to the appellant/writ petitioner though he purchased a property on 23.09.2005 from the previous assessee, he sold the property in question in three portions on different dates, i.e., 11.11.2005, 08.12.2005 and 10.11.2006. Therefore, there was no justification for the Department to impose tax on him except for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. 3. The contention of the Government Pleader was, in spite of service of notice as early as on 18.03.2010, he neither filed objections nor appeared before the authority explaining why he was not liable to pay the entire amounts towards Agricultural Income Tax. The fact remains, the appellant/writ petitioner had W.A. No. 652 of 2012 -:2:- not enjoyed the produce from these lands for the entire assessment periods for which tax was levied. Therefore, he has to appear before the concerned authority and produce necessary documents including revenue records to show what exactly was the period for which he had the benefit of lands in his possession and what was the income he could have derived from the said lands. 4. However, the learned Judge after considering the arguments of the writ petitioner as well as the Government Pleader, taking into account the provisions of Section 42 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act also directed the writ petitioner to approach the respondent authorities and place on record the material for fresh assessment and consider the rectification petition. However, the learned Judge directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount due as per Ext.P11. 5. Having regard to the fact that he did not have the benefit of the land for the entire period of assessment as noticed by th Department, we are of the opinion, if he is allowed to pay W.A. No. 652 of 2012 -:3:- 25% of the amount, shown at Ext.P11, it would meet the ends of justice. With this modification, we dispose of the Writ Appeal. All other contentions are left open. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. V. Chitambaresh, Judge. ttb/30/03 "