P.T. Kuttimalu Amma V. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, A.I.T. & S.T., Kozhikode and The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, A.I.T. & S.T., Kozhikode and The Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer, Kozhikode and The Sub Treasury Officer, Puthiyara, Kozhikode and The Accountant General, Thiruvananthapuram

OP/12317/2001

AI Insights

The case involves P.T. Kuttimalu Amma, the petitioner, who sought a refund for excess agricultural income tax paid. The petitioner had paid Rs. 40,000 during recovery proceedings, which was subsequently misaccounted by the revenue authorities, leading to the non-encashment of the refund voucher. The court examined whether the petitioner should be denied the refund due to this accounting error by the authorities. The court concluded that the petitioner should not be denied the refund as the payment had been credited correctly in the department's account, and the mistake was on the part of the revenue authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2007] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689806 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2007
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: H SIVARAMAN; PRADEEP
• Assessee Lawyers: P V KARUNAKARAN; PREETHY KARUNAKARAN; R KORMATH; ANISH AMBADY; BIJIMOL JOSE
• Keywords: Agricultural income-tax; Refund; Revenue authorities; Head of Account

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1929 OP.No. 12317 of 2001(N) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.T.KUTTIMALU AMMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE KANARAN NAIR,' AND WIDOW OF GANGADHARA KURUP, OTTILAYIL HOUSE, P.O. ERANHIPALAM, CALICUT – 6. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KARUNAKARAN SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH SRI.ANISH S.AMBADY SMT.BIJIMOL JOSE RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIOINER, A.I.T. & S.T., KOZHIKODE. 2. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, A.I.T. & S.T., KOZHIKODE. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE – 4. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENENRAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.H.SIVARAMAN, ADDL.CGSC GOVT. PLEADER SRI.PRADEEP. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2007, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.No.19717/2001 IN OP.NO.12317/2001-N. DISMISSED. 19.11.2007. Sd/- C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: Copy of the order dtd.28.9.1996 passed by the 3rd respondent, No.K.319/88-89. P2: Copy of the refund order dtd.1.10.1996 issued by the third respondent to the petitioner. P3: Copy of the order dtd.28.9.1996 issued by the third respondent, No.K.319/88-89. P4: Copy of the objection dtd.7.10.1996 issued by the 4th respondent together with endorsement made by the 3rd respondent. P5: Copy of objection dtd.8.10.1996 issued by the 4th respondent. P6: Copy of the letter dtd.9.10.1996 issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner, No.K.319/88-89. P7: Copy of the letter dtd.25.11.1997 issued by the 3rd respondent to the first respondent, with copy to the petitioner No.K.319/88-89. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil. ( true copy ) P.S. TO JUDGE. kvs/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 12317 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2007 JUDGMENT This O.P. is filed for direction to respondents to make payment based on Ext.P2 refund voucher granting refund of Rs. 22,508/- being excess agricultural income tax paid by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Rs. 40,000/- was paid in recovery proceedings before the Village Officer, who in turn remitted to the Agrl. Income-tax Officer. However, refund voucher is not encashed only because payment is not accounted in the correct head of account. I do not think petitioner can be denied the benefit of refund because of the mistake committed by the revenue authorities while remitting the recovered amount. Admittedly petitioner paid cash to the Village Officer who in turn remitted it to the Treasury. It was the duty of the revenue authorities to remit the amount in the correct head of account to reach the requisitioning authority who is the Agrl. Income-tax Officer. It is clear from Ext.P1 that the Assessing Officer has got the payment and that is why he treated the tax as fully paid and granted refund. When the 2 amount was already credited in the correct account of the concerned Department, I see no reason why petitioner should be declined refund. In fact the argument of respondents that payment is not in the correct head of account also does not appear to be correct because without remittances in the correct head of account, credit would not have gone towards AIT for the relevant year. When such credit is already given, it is only a matter of granting refund based on assessing officer's order. In the circumstances, I dispose of the O.P. with direction to the third respondent to issue fresh refund voucher and respondents 4 and 5 to release the payment to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 3 "