Savy L. Purayidam vs Agricultural Income Tax and Commercial Tax Officer and Others

Antony Dominic, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents. The petitioner challenges exhibits P3 and P4. According to the petitioner, he is an assessee under the Agricultural income tax Act. Tax was assessed for the assessment year 1988-89 by exhibit P1 and was paid by exhibit 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 assessment year 1988-89. 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 u/s 57 of the Agricultural income tax Act, 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 the 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 exhibits P3 and P4.

Admittedly, the assessment year in question is 1988-89. Going by the counter-affidavit filed, the assessment order in so far as the transferor, Sri Sakthivel, was amended and an assessment order was passed on September 6, 1997. Section 99(3) of the Agricultural income tax Act, 1991, specifically states that notwithstanding the repeal of the 1950 Act, the provisions of the 1950 Act will apply for initiation and completion of any proceeding for the period prior to 1991. u/s 35(2) of the 1950 Act, assessments shall be completed within five years from the end of the year for which the agricultural income was first assessable. In so far as this case is concerned, the agricultural income against the transferor was first assessable during 1988-89. The amended assessment order which led to the revenue recovery proceedings in question was passed only on September 6, 1997. This, admittedly, is beyond the five-year period specified in section 35(2). If that be so, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by exhibits P3 and P4 is clearly untenable. For that reason itself, I quash exhibits P3 and P4 and the writ petition is allowed as above.