9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : P. R. RAMAN. JUDGMENT P.R. Raman J.- The petitioner challenges exhibits P11 and P12 revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the property said to be owned and possessed by the petitioner herein for the alleged agricultural income-tax due from one Thomas Karkappilly. Exhibit P11 is a notice issued by the revenue recovery authority in which it refers to the proceedings of the District Collector dated July 29, 2002, and also his letter dated December 1, 2000. It further shows that as per the reference cited therein one Thomas Karukappilly, Puliara, Chittur, was a defaulter towards agricultural income-tax of an amount of Rs. 7,64,597 and a revenue recovery certificate had been received from the Income-tax Officer, Mannarkadu, for recovery of the amount. It is stated that subsequently the said defaulter had transferred the property and hence notice was affixed in the property and on enquiry, it was found that three persons have purchased properties from the defaulter on different dates. One Brijith, W/o. Abraham purchased two acres of property as per registered sale deed No. 620 of 1996 in Sy. No. 2019. One Eldho C. Paul purchased an extent of 4 acres 40 cents as per regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale deeds. Pursuant thereto, taxes in respect of the property were also paid by the petitioner as evidenced by exhibits P8 and P9. Exhibit P10 is the possession certificate issued by the Village Officer under date January 22, 2001. It is the definite case of the petitioner that exhibit P11 order was not served on him. It is his case that the third respondent who is the alleged defaulter towards agricultural income-tax was not in station as is disclosed in exhibit P11 and coming to know about the revenue recovery proceedings, he approached the first respondent for serving a copy of the assessment order, but was turned down. It was in the circumstances that he approached this court. It is his contention that even prior to the assessment made on the third respondent, the petitioner had purchased the property and he is a bona fide purchaser without notice and no proceedings can be initiated against the property owned and possessed by him for any agricultural income-tax arrears due from the third respondent. On behalf of the first respondent, a statement was filed wherein it is stated that Thomas Karukappilly (third respondent) owned and possessed 7.96 acres of land in resurvey No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue recovery authorities were understood to have taken steps to bring the properties for attachment and sale to realise the tax arrears. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, it is useful to refer to some of the statutory provisions, which have a bearing in deciding the issue arising for consideration in the case. Section 35 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, deals with the procedure for assessment and as per section 35(2) of the Act enables an Agricultural Income-tax Officer to issue notice to such person, if any in his opinion, is assessable to tax under this Act in respect of the agricultural income-tax during the previous year and requiring him to furnish a return within 30 days of the notice and in case any such person fails to furnish the return, section 39(4) enables the Assessing Officer to make an assessment on best judgment basis. In the case of escaped assessment, that is to say if for any reason, agricultural income chargeable to tax under the Act has escaped assessment in any financial year or has been assessed at too low a rate, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer may at any time, within ten years of the end of that year and subject t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereas the petitioner had purchased the property by exhibits P1 and P2 as early as in 1996 itself. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, could the property in question be charged with any liability for the arrears of tax due from the third respondent since there were no proceedings pending as in 1996 at the time of purchase of the property by the petitioner herein. Though a contention is raised by the respondent that the petitioner repurchased the property in June 26, 2000, from Eldho by which time the proceedings have already commenced, this contention has only to be rejected as irrelevant since Eldho is not the defaulter against whom any arrears of agricultural income-tax are due or payable. When the petitioner became absolute owner of the property by exhibits P1 and P2, he is free to sell the property to any third party and repurchase the same. It is not a case where the petitioner after such purchase sold the property in favour of the third respondent defaulter so as to attract the provision under section 45(2) of the Act as on the date of repurchase in 2000. Section 45(2) of the Act only says that there shall be a first charge on the property owned by the defaulter concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
