SAJAN MANI V. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS.

WP(C)/10872/2007

AI Insights

The case revolves around the petitioner, Sajan Mani, who sought to be included in the appeals against the agricultural income tax assessments conducted by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Kottayam, for the years 2001-02 to 2004-05. These assessments were related to properties that Mani had purchased. The primary legal issue was whether Mani could be allowed to intervene in the ongoing appeals to contest the tax assessments. The court's decision to allow his impleadment was based on the premise that the appeals were still pending and that his inclusion could be relevant to the proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755894 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Kerala Revenue Recovery Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: T K SHAIJ RAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: SREELAL WARRIER; SIVARAMA MENON
• Keywords: Agricultural income-tax; Assessment Order; Debt Recovery; Impleadment in Appeals
• Section: 49

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/24TH ASWINA 1934 WP(C).No. 10872 of 2007 (T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SAJAN MANI, S/O LATE SRI K.O.MANI, KANIYARKZHIYIL HOUSE, KARIKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 586. BY ADVS.SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER, SRI.SIVARAM.R. MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, VAITHIRI TALUK, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. SHAIJ RAJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. W.P.(C).NO.10872/2007-T: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: CERTIFICATE OF NO LIABILITY GIVEN BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DTD. 21/02/2005. EXT.P.2: CERTIFICATE OF NO LIABILITY GIVEN BY CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA DTD. 21/03/2005. EXT.P.3: ORDER DTD. 07/04/2005 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.4: SALE DEED NO. 703 OF 2005 OF SRO, KALPETTA DTD. 26/02/2005. EXT.P.5: SALE DEED NO.704/2005 OF SRO, KALPETTA DTD. 26/02/2005. EXT.P.6: SALE DEED NO.705 OF 2005 OF SRO, KALPETTA DTD. 26/02/2005. EXT.P.7: NOTICE OF SALE UNDER SECTION 49 OF KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DTD. 19/02/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.8: ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 19/05/2006 OF THE R.1. FOR THE YEAR 2001-02. EXT.P.9: ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 19/05/2006 OF THE R.1. FOR THE YEAR 2002-03. EXT.P.10: ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 19/05/2006 OF THE R.1. FOR THE YEAR 2003-04. EXT.P.11: ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 19/05/2006 OF THE R.1. FOR THE YEAR 2004-05. EXT.P.12: APPEAL DTD. 17/12/2006 IN FORM 26 TO THE R.2. AGAINST EXT.P.8. ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXT.P.13: APPEAL DTD. 18/12/2006 IN FORM 26 TO THE R.2. AGAINST EXT.P.9 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXT.P.14: APPEAL DTD. 18/12/2006 IN FORM 26 TO THE R.2. AGAINST EXT.P.10 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXT.P.15: APPEAL DTD. 18/12/2006 IN FORM 26 TO THE R.2. AGAINST EXT.P.11. ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXT.P.16: INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DTD. 18/12/2006 FOR URGENT HEARING AND DISPOSAL OF EXT.P.12. APPEAL. EXT.P.17: INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DTD. 18/12/2006 FOR URGENT HEARING AND DISPOSAL OF EXT.P.13. APPEAL. W.P.(C).NO. 10872/2007-T: EXT.P.18: INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DTD. 18/12/2006 FOR URGENT HEARING AND DISPOSAL OF EXT.P.14. APPEAL. EXT.P.19: INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DTD. 18/12/2006 FOR URGENT HEARING AND DISPOSAL OF EXT.P.15 APPEAL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.10872 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2012 JUDGMENT Exts.P8 to P11 are the orders of assessment passed by the Agricultural Income Tax Department. It appears that the property, in relation to which, the assessment has been completed, has been purchased by the petitioner by Exts.P4 to P6 and in this writ petition what he seeks is that he should be allowed to get himself impleaded in the appeals and prosecute the appeals on that basis. 2. If the appeals referred to above are still pending consideration of the second respondent, I see no reason why the prayer shall not be granted. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that since the appeals are still pending, the petitioner will be allowed to get himself impleaded in the appeals and on that basis, the appeals will be dealt with. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln "