KRAMAKRISHANAPPA Vs. AGRICULTURE INCOME TAX OFFICER CHICKMAGALUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner on his own showing is a tax dodger. His true grievance appears to be that his tax evasion has been detected and that he is made to disgorge the unlawful gain made by him. He says that the order of rectification, which is the subjects-matter of attack in these proceedings, was made without the authority of law. Assuming with out deciding that his complaint is true, the first question for decision is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we would be justified in exercising our extraordinary powers under article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The material facts are as follows :

(3.) Section 4 lays down that subject to the provisions of the "Act", the total agricultural income of any "previous year" of any person comprising of all agricultural income derived from any land to which the "Act" is applicable, whether received by him within or without the State, subject to certain exceptions, which are not relevant for our present purpose. The tax liability was imposed by the charging section. In the "Act", there are provisions authorising quantification of the tax imposed and for collecting the same. For our present purpose, it would be sufficient if we refer to sub-section (1) and (5) of section 64 of the "Act".