9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is exhibit P-10, revising the order of assessment. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner applied for reference to this court for its opinion of certain questions of law stated to arise therefrom under section 60 of the 1950 Act. A copy of the application is exhibit P-11 dated August 9, 1991. By that time, the 1950 Act had been repealed and replaced by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 ("the 1991 Act"), which came into force on April 1, 1991. Section 76 of the 1991 Act corresponds to section 34 of the 1950 Act and confers power on the Commissioner to exercise suo motu power of revision in respect of orders passed by the subordinate authorities which are considered prejudicial to the Revenue. But wide departure w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereunder and, subject thereto, anything done or any action taken, including any order passed in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the 1950 Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under the 1991 Act as if this Act were in force on the date on which such thing was done or action was taken. As to what is the proper remedy of the petitioner has to be decided with reference to this repealing provision. Section 99(1) is clear and specific that the repeal will not affect the previous operation of the 1950 Act or any right, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred thereunder. It is only subject to this that anything done or any action taken under the said Act i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, the fiction created by the latter part of the proviso is clearly subject and subservient to the rights and obligations accrued or incurred under the 1950 Act. The remedy of the petitioner in relation to the order, exhibit P-10, was thus under section 60 of the 1950 Act, as rightly invoked by them. I have therefore, no hesitation in holding that the order of the Commissioner, exhibit P-14, is unsustainable in law and against the plain terms of section 99(1) of the 1991 Act. Accordingly, I quash exhibit P-14. The second respondent, Commissioner, is directed to consider and dispose of the reference application, exhibit P-11, afresh in accordance with the provisions of section 60 of the 1950 Act with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
