M. MADHAPPA GOWDER vs AGRICULTURAL Income Tax OFFICER AND OTHERS.

K. NARAYANA KURUP J. - Held counsel on both sides.

The petitioner was an assessee under the Kerala Agricultural Income- tax Act, 1950, on the files of the first respondent. Exhibit P-1 is the common pre-assessment notice issued by the first respondent for the years 1988-89 to 1990-91 proposing to complete the assessment on best judgment basis ignoring the evidence. Exhibits P-3 to P-5 are the objections filed by the petitioner against exhibit P-1. Exhibit P-6 is the common assessment order for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1990- 91 completing the assessment as proposed under the pre-assessment notice. Aggrieved by exhibit P-6, the petitioner filed exhibit P-8 to P-10 revision petitions before the second respondent - revisional authority - viz., the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales tax, Kozhikode. Exhibits P-11 to P-13 are the stay petitions filed by the petitioner before the second respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exhibits P-8 to P-10 revision petitioner are pending and that no orders have been passed on exhibits P-11 to P-13 stay petitions.

The grievance of the petitioner is that pending disposal of the revision petitions and pending issuance of orders on the stay petitions as aforesaid, the third respondent has now issued exhibit P- 7 revenue recovery notice calling upon the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 25,098, falling which it is threatened that coercive action will be taken to enforce the demand.

The petitioner has raised various contentions in support of his case. The main thrust of the petitioners argument was that exhibit P-6 assessment was completed before the pre-assessment notice was served upon the assessee, and, hence, the assessment completed u/s 18(4) of the Kerala Agriculture Income Tax Act, 1950, is against law. Going by exhibit P-1, assessment notice, and exhibit P-2, postal cover, I am of the opinion that the petitioners contentions in this regard cannot be lightly brushed aside and that it requires consideration at the hands of the revisional authority. The petitioner has other contentions as well. But having regard to the fact that the petitioner has availed of the remedy by way of revision and the revision petitions are pending before the revisional authority, I am not examining the legality or correctness of those contentions in these proceedings.

Therefore, all that I propose to do is to direct the revisional authority to consider and dispose of exhibits P-8 to P-10 revision petitions expeditiously, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and pending disposal of the revisions as aforesaid, there will be a stay of all further proceedings for recovery of the agricultural Income Tax due under exhibit P-6 assessment order and exhibit P-7 notice. The original petition is disposed of as above.