B D BASAVARAJ Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions two assessees have assailed the validity of second proviso to Rule 9(c) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1957, as ultra vires of the Act, viz., the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957 (in short the 'Act')- They have further prayed for quashing of Annexures - E to L to the petitions which are comprised of assessment order or re-assessment order under Section 36 of the Act accompanied by the demand in accordance with such order.

(2.) It sufficies for us to state that in the case of B.D. Basavaraj - petitioner in W.P. Nos. 10945 to 10947 of 1982, the assessment years in question are 1976-77 to 1979-80 and in the case of B.D. Vishwanath - petitioner in W.P. Nos. 10948 to 10951 of 1982, the assessment years are 1976-77 to 1980-81.

(3.) In the course of the arguments before us the learned Counsel Sri Shivaram has not pressed his challenge to the validity of Rule 9(c) as the same has already been upheld to be valid by this Court in E.M.V. Muthappan v Agricultural Income Tax Officer, ILR 1989 Karnataka 3517. Therefore, what remains for our consideration is whether the assessment orders assailed on the ground that the assessment orders and the consequent demand notices suffer from want of jurisdiction inasmuch as notice required to be issued under Section 36 of the Act was not in conformity with that Section as it is not a notice under Section 18(2) of the Act and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated and the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.