9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Exemption of income from agricultural lands for charitable and religious purposes under Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act. 2. Validity of assessment proceedings and revision by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax. 3. Legal implications of setting aside an order by the High Court in a writ petition. 4. Proper procedure for disposal of revision petition after remand by the High Court. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a religious and charitable trust, sought exemption under section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, claiming that the income from agricultural lands was utilized for religious and charitable purposes as per the trust deed. The trust was assessed by the second respondent for multiple years, leading to a tax demand. The petitioner contended that the exemption should apply, leading to a revision petition (RP No. 427 of 1979) challenging the assessment. 2. The revision was initially decided ex parte and dismissed by the first respondent. Subsequently, a writ petition (W.P. No. 7910 of 1986) was filed, resulting in the High Court setting aside the earlier order and remanding the matter for fresh disposal. However, the first respondent confirmed the original order dated September 10, 1985, despite the High Court's decision. The petitioner challenged this decision through a writ petition, arguing that the first respondent could not confirm an order that had been set aside by the High Court. 3. The High Court clarified that when it sets aside an order, the order is deemed to have never been made, and legally it no longer exists. Therefore, the first respondent's attempt to confirm the order dated September 10, 1985, was incorrect as per the legal fiction created by the High Court's decision in the writ petition. The High Court held that the first respondent should have conducted fresh proceedings in accordance with the law after the remand, rather than confirming an order that was no longer valid. 4. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of January 2, 1997, made by the first respondent, and remitted the matter back for fresh proceedings. The High Court directed the first respondent to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard and to pass orders according to law. The decision emphasized the importance of following proper legal procedures and ensuring that orders are made in accordance with the law, especially after a remand by the High Court.
|
