9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment of taxable income for the year 1996-97 under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. 2. Rejection of representation challenging the assessment order. 3. Rejection of stay petition and subsequent attachment of the petitioner's lorry. 4. Dismissal of revision petition by the first respondent. 5. Compliance with court directions to deposit a sum of money. 6. Refund of excess tax paid by the petitioner. 7. Failure to receive a favorable response for refund requests. 8. Invocation of writ jurisdiction seeking relief. Analysis: 1. The petitioner owned an agricultural estate and was assessed under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 for the year 1996-97. Despite filing a return showing a loss, the second respondent assessed the taxable income at a higher amount, leading to a dispute. 2. The petitioner challenged the assessment order through a representation, which was rejected. Subsequently, a revision petition was filed before the first respondent, along with a stay petition, which was also rejected. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the order passed in the stay petition. 3. In response to the writ petition, the court directed the release of the petitioner's lorry upon depositing a specified sum of money. The court also directed the second respondent to pass a fresh assessment order, with a condition for the petitioner to deposit a further sum of money. 4. The first respondent dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, leading to another writ petition before the court. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation on the merits within a specified period. 5. The petitioner complied with the court's directions by depositing the required sums of money. Subsequently, the second respondent passed a new assessment order showing a lower taxable income and an excess tax paid by the petitioner, which was to be refunded or adjusted against tax dues. 6. Despite multiple attempts through representations and notices, the petitioner did not receive a favorable response regarding the refund of the excess tax paid, leading to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction seeking relief. 7. The court, considering the limited prayer sought by the petitioner, directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation on the merits and in accordance with the law within a specified period, providing specific instructions to the petitioner as well. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition was disposed of, with no costs incurred, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, providing a resolution to the issues raised by the petitioner in the legal proceedings.
|
