High Courts(1979) 08 KAR CK 0031

Javaregowda vs Additional Agrl. It Officer Mysore and Another

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 6 August 1979 · Citation: (1979) 2 KarLJ 462

HON’BLE JUDGES
Chandrakantharaj Urs, J
CASE NUMBER
WP 6153 etc./77

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 417 words
1.

This writ petition originally was directed against the order of the Additional Agricultural Income Tax Office, Mysore, made under Sec. 21 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dismissing the application of the petitioner as barred by time in respect of the assessment orders passed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Mysore Circle, Mysore, on 14.5.1973 in relation to assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72.

2.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1 for amendment of the petition, praying for quashing all the assessment orders as well. This amendment was allowed on 2.9.1977 by this Court At that time it was overlooked by the office of this Court that one single writ petition was not maintainable for quashing four distinct and separate assessment orders relating to different assessment years.

3.

The petition has come up for today for orders on I.A. No. II, wherein the petitioner has prayed for stay of collection of tax as assessed in Exhibit-O, P, Q and R to the petition which are the relevant assessment orders impugned.

4.

The learned Counsel for the respondent has filed a memo stating that the respondents agree for quashing of the impugned orders without any order as to costs.

5.

This is not normally done unless reasons are disclosed as to why the impugned orders should be quashed or point out any apparent error or irregularity in the orders which call for interference by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

6.

The learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the correspondence between himself and the respondents has stated that the original notice under Sec. 18(4) of the Act itself was issued under the impression that the petitioner was the proper person who was to be assessed and later it transpired that he was not the person who was cultivating the lands in question. The statement made from the Bar is accepted. The memo is placed on record. The four assessment orders at Exhibits-O, P, Q and R are hereby quashed as orders made without jurisdiction.

7.

The petitioner shall pay the deficit Court fee of Rs. 300/- and the writ petitions relating to Exhibits P, Q and R will be numbered as writ petitions 6153(A), 6153(B) and 6153(C) of 1977.

8.

As a result of the writ petition itself being allowed there is no need to pass orders on I.A. No. II.

9.

In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.