1994 (1) TMI 56 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of repealing provision under Section 99(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991.
2. Determination of the proper remedy available to the petitioner under the 1950 Act or the 1991 Act.
3. Validity of the Commissioner's rejection of the application for reference under the 1950 Act.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the interpretation of the repealing provision under Section 99(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991. The petitioner's assessment under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, for the year 1980-81 was revised by the Commissioner under Section 34 of the Act. Subsequently, the 1950 Act was repealed and replaced by the 1991 Act, which introduced changes in the remedy available to aggrieved parties. The key issue was whether the petitioner's remedy lay under the 1950 Act or the 1991 Act. The Court analyzed the proviso to Section 99(1), emphasizing that the repeal would not affect rights accrued under the 1950 Act, including actions taken or orders passed. The Court held that the petitioner's remedy under the 1950 Act was valid as the rights accrued under the previous Act were preserved by the repealing provision.

The Court also addressed the Commissioner's rejection of the petitioner's application for reference under the 1950 Act. The Commissioner contended that the petitioner should have approached the Court under the 1991 Act. However, the Court disagreed, stating that the remedy available to the petitioner was under the 1950 Act, as the order in question was passed before the enforcement of the 1991 Act. The Court emphasized that the rights accrued under the 1950 Act were not affected by the repealing provision of the 1991 Act. Therefore, the Commissioner's rejection of the application was deemed unsustainable and against the provisions of Section 99(1) of the 1991 Act.

Consequently, the Court quashed the Commissioner's order and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the reference application under the 1950 Act within a specified timeframe. The judgment clarified the interplay between the repealing provision and the preservation of accrued rights under the previous Act, ensuring that the petitioner's remedy was upheld in accordance with the law. The original petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed on either party.