9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the Commissioner's order canceling the composition order. 2. Applicability of the Amending Act 7 of 1966 to the assessment year 1966-67. 3. Determination of land holding exceeding 50 standard acres for the assessment year 1967-68. Analysis: 1. Validity of the Commissioner's Order Canceling the Composition Order: The petitioner challenged the Commissioner's order canceling the composition order, arguing that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise or cancel such an order. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner erred in finding that her land holding exceeded 50 standard acres. The court held that a challenge to the validity of an Act must be made in writ proceedings, not in a revision challenging the Commissioner's order. The court dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the Commissioner's order for the assessment year 1966-67. 2. Applicability of the Amending Act 7 of 1966 to the Assessment Year 1966-67: The court analyzed the applicability of the Amending Act 7 of 1966 to the assessment year 1966-67. The petitioner argued that the Act, which came into force on May 13, 1966, should not apply to the assessment year that commenced on April 1, 1966. Citing previous decisions, the court emphasized that changes in the law during an assessment year should not apply unless specifically made retrospective. The court held that since the Amending Act was not retrospective and came into force after the commencement of the assessment year, it should not govern the assessment for that year. Consequently, the court quashed the Commissioner's order for the assessment year 1966-67. 3. Determination of Land Holding Exceeding 50 Standard Acres for the Assessment Year 1967-68: For the assessment year 1967-68, the court considered the petitioner's claim that her land holding was less than 50 standard acres. The Commissioner had determined the petitioner's holding to be above 50 standard acres, leading to the cancellation of the composition order. The court noted that the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to prove her claim based on adangal extracts. The court directed the Commissioner to reevaluate the petitioner's land holding for the assessment year 1967-68, allowing the petitioner to substantiate her position. Consequently, the court vacated the Commissioner's order for that year, providing specific directions for a fresh assessment. In conclusion, the court upheld the petitioner's challenges regarding the validity of the Commissioner's order, the applicability of the Amending Act, and the determination of land holding, issuing specific directions for each issue.
|
