INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX KOZHIKODE Vs. POOMULLI MANAKKAL PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals by certificates brought by the Department, we have to decide as to what is the true scope of Section 29 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 as amended in 1964 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act)

(2.) This case has a long history which by no means is complimentary to the Department. The common respondent in both these appeals moved the High Court of Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the appellant herein may be prohibited from taking further proceedings for assessing him as the Karta of Poomulli Mana to agricultural income-tax for the assessment year 1961-62.

(3.) The respondent was the karta of a Namboodri family known as Poomulli Mana till March 30, 1958. The Namboodri in the Malabar District of the Kerala State were previously governed by the Madras Nambudri Act, 1932. Now they are governed by the Kerala Nambudri Act, 1958. The respondent's family owned large tracts of lands both in Malabar District which was a part of the Madras State till November 1, 1956 as well as in the erstwhile Travancore and Cochin State. Under the States Reorganization Act, 1954, the new State of Kerala was formed consisting of the former Malabar District of the State of Madras as well as the former Travancore-Cochin State. The new State of Kerala came into being on November 1, 1956. Thereafter the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 was extended to the former Malabar District with effect from April 1, 1957 by Kerala Act 8 of 1957. In the assessment year 1957-58, the assessing authorities assessed Poomulli Mana as an undivided family. That order was quashed by the High Court. On March 30, 1958, the members of the family entered into a registered partition deed under which the family became divided. Thereafter the respondent ceased to be the karta of the family. Nevertheless the authorities under the Act issued notices to the respondent under Section 17 (2) and Section 39 of the Act proposing to assess him as the manager of his H. U. F. for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. The respondent challenged the validity of those notices before the High court of Kerala. When the case came up for hearing before a Division Bench of that High Court, the learned Counsel appearing for the Department informed the Court that the Department was going to assess the respondent only as an "individual" and not as the karta of his family. On the basis of that representation, the Court passed the following order: