1997 (6) TMI 12 - HC - Income Tax

Agricultural Income Tax Act Law Applicable Orders Passed Retrospective Effect Tribunal s Order

Summary

Issues:
Assessment proceedings challenged based on jurisdiction, Effect of legislative amendment on Tribunal's orders, Petitioner's right to raise additional grounds before Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment involves assessment proceedings for multiple years challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner initiated suo motu revisional proceedings against the assessment orders, leading to appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the Deputy Commissioner's orders, citing lack of jurisdiction due to legislative restrictions. However, a subsequent legislative amendment introduced an Explanation with retrospective effect, empowering the Joint Commissioner to revise orders passed by subordinates. This legislative change rendered the Tribunal's decision ineffective, allowing the Deputy Commissioner's orders to be enforced.

The petitioner contended that despite the legislative amendment, the Tribunal's decision should stand unless recalled or set aside by a competent authority. However, the court held that the legislative provision validated all actions taken under the principal Act before the amendment, including reassessments and revisions. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision on jurisdiction was deemed to be under the amended Act, making the Deputy Commissioner's orders valid. The court emphasized the legislative power to render judgments inoperative by removing their basis, as done in this case.

Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns about unaddressed grounds in the appeals before the Tribunal due to the focus on jurisdiction. The court acknowledged the petitioner's right to raise these additional points and directed the petitioner to file an application before the Tribunal for rehearing on the unresolved issues. If the petitioner files such an application within two months, the Tribunal is instructed to reconsider the appeals and issue fresh orders on the remaining points.

In conclusion, the court partially allowed the petitions, granting the petitioner the opportunity to present the unexplored grounds before the Tribunal. The interim order was extended for two months, and no costs were awarded in the matter.