V.V. Murali, Pallivasal Cardamom Plantations, Kallar, Vattiar P.O., Idukky District V. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer, Adimaly and Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Commercial Taxes, Museum Road, Thiruvananthapuram

OP/18180/2001

AI Insights

The case involves V.V. Murali, the petitioner, who challenged the interest levied on delayed remittance of agricultural income tax for the years 1990-91 to 1993-94. The petitioner argued that the delays were due to the sale of his estate in 1993 and financial difficulties, which prevented timely payment of the taxes due. The respondents were the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer, Adimaly, and the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Commercial Taxes. The court examined whether the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay were sufficient to warrant a waiver of the interest charged on the delayed payments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 812340 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Agricultural Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MATHEW VADAKKEL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K NAMBIAR; ANIL NAIR
• Keywords: Agricultural income-tax; Delayed remittance; Interest Levy; Waiver of interest
• Section: 37(4)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 OP.No. 18180 OF 2001(L) PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.V. MURALI, PALLIVASAL CARDAMOM PLANTATITONS, KALLAR, VATTIAR P.O., IDUKKY DISTRICT. BY ADVS. M/S. A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR & ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX OFFICER, ADIMALY. 2. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAXES, MUSEUM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. 18180/2001 ORDER ON CMP NO. 29180/2001 IN O.P. 18180/2001 // DISMISSED // 1.9.2008. SD/-, P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR 90-91 DATED 29.3.1995. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 91-92 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 29.3.1995. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 1992-93 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 29.3.1995. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 1993-94 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30.3.1995. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.1.2001. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.5.2001 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 1.10.2000. //TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = = O.P. NO. 18180 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges the interest levied for delayed remittance of tax due under the Agricultural Income Tax Act. As per the proviso to Section 37(4) the Commissioner has got the power to reduce or waive the interest payable by any person, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient reason for the non-payment of tax in time. 2. For the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 the balance due is as per revised assessments after appeals were disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. According to the petitioner, he could not remit the dues since he has sold the estate in 1993 and there was no agricultural income to clear the dues. For the year 1993-94 the balance due as per the revised assessment could not be remitted in time since according to the petitioner, the revised assessment was received only in January, 2001. It was also pointed out that there was a stay granted by the Tribunal on condition to pay Rs.25, 000/- which had been complied with. O.P. 18180/2001 :2: 3. The waiver of interest is a statutory power vested on the authority concerned. Admittedly amounts were due and payable. The question is whether the reasons advanced is supported by any materials produced and convincing and whether the rejection of the claim for waiver of interest is in any way liable to be interfered with. 4. When admittedly payments were delayed the only question is regarding the reason advanced for causing the delay. The fact that his estate was sold in 1993 was not found to be a good reason for the non remittance of the agricultural income tax due in time. Petitioner has not produced any materials to show that he faced with any financial difficulties or inability to raise funds despite earnest attempts to raise the same. The authority having exercised its discretion in the matter, such orders cannot be reviewed unless it is found to be perverse. In the absence of any such plea and materials produced I find no ground for interference. Dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) knc/- O.P. 18180/2001 :3: P.R. RAMAN, J. O.P. NO. 18180/2001 J U D G M E N T 1.9.2008. "