SAVY L.PURAYIDAM V. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & OTHERS

WP(C)/19259/2007

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Savy L. Purayidam challenging the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against him for unpaid agricultural income tax for the assessment year 1988-1989. The petitioner had previously paid the assessed tax, but recovery proceedings were initiated against him as the transferee of properties from the original assessee, M/s. Kunharpathy Cardamom Estate. The respondents justified the recovery on the grounds that the petitioner, being a transferee, was liable for the default of the transferor. However, the court found that the recovery proceedings were initiated beyond the statutory five-year limit for assessments under the applicable law at the time, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699460 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUNJACHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SAJAN K; LIJU M P; M N SAJEER
• Keywords: Agricultural income-tax; Assessment Year; Revenue recovery; Transferee liability
• Section: 57; 35(2); 99(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/20TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 19259 of 2007 (P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SAVY L. PURAYIDAM, S/O. XAVIER LUKA, PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE,KARAMKODU, ANCHUMOORTHYMANGALAM P.O.,VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE .K, SRI.LIJU. M.P, SRI.M.N.SAJEER. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DY. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKENCHERRY II VILLAGE,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ KUNJACHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. W.P.(C). NO.19259/2007-P: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 20/12/1996 PASSED FOR THE YEAR 1988-89 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.10 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/06/2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.2. BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PURCHASE DEED NO.339/1988 OF ALATHUR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PURCHASE DEED NO.1308/1990 OF VADAKKENCHERRY SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J -------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19259 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents. Petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P4. According to the petitioner, he is an assessee under the Agricultural Income Tax Act. Tax was assessed for the assessment year 1988-1989 by Ext.P1 and was paid by Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, despite payments made as above, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against him for recovery of Rs.26,285/- being the tax payable under the Act for the asssessment year 1988- 1989. It is challenging the recovery proceedings, he has filed this writ petition. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents show that recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 57 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, W.P.(C).No.19259 of 2007 : 2 : 1991, being the transferee of the properties of the owner of M/s.Kunharpathy Cardamom Estate, Sri.Sakthivel. According to the respondents, since the petitioner is the transferee of the properties of an assessee and when assessee has committed default, the respondents are entitled to recover the tax due from the transferee and it is on that basis, they are seeking to justify Exts.P3 and P4. Admittedly, the assessment year in question is 1988- 1989. Going by the counter affidavit filed, the assessment order insofar as the transferor Sri.Sakthivel was amended and an assessment order was passed on 06.09.1997. Section 99(3) of the A.I.T. Act, 1991, specifically states that notwithstanding the repeal of the 1950 Act, the provisions of 1950 Act will apply for initiation and completion of any proceeding for the period prior to 1991. Under Section 35(2) of 1950 Act, assessments shall be W.P.(C).No.19259 of 2007 : 3 : completed within five years from the end of the year for which the agricultural income was first assessable. Insofar as this case is concerned, agricultural income against the transferor was first assessable during 1988- 1989. The amended assessment order which led to the Revenue Recovery proceedings in question, was passed only on 06.09.1997. This, admittedly, is beyond the five year period specified in Section 35(2). If that be so, Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Exts.P3 and P4, is clearly untenable. For that reason itself, I quash Exts.P3 and P4 and the writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln "