PETER ELIZABETH Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised by the widow of a deceased assessee under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is whether a notice Ext. P1 issued by the second respondent, the Deputy Tahsildar of Revenue Recovery, Sherthallai under S.7 of the Travancore Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951 to her is incompetent or not. After the death of the original assessee, George Peter, who it is admitted was a defaulter as envisaged by S.30 of the Act, no notice was issued to the petitioner, the widow of George Peter under S.30 of the Act, and therefore it is contended that the petitioner is not a defaulter. Consequently it is urged that no certificate could have been issued under S.41(3) of the Act to the Revenue Recovery Officer for recovery from the petitioner of the tax due from the said George Peter.

(2.) George Peter was assessed on 12-12-1963 for the assessment year 1963-64. A notice under S.30 of the Act was admittedly issued to him. He did not pay the tax. He died on 3-4-1967. Thereafter no notice under S.30 of the Act was issued to the petitioner. But Ext. P1 Revenue Recovery Notice dated 29-1-1968 was issued to the petitioner as well as the other heirs of George Peter stating that the properties mentioned in the notice will be proceeded against for recovery of the tax. A certificate dated 26-6-1964 had been issued to the second respondent stating that a sum of Rs. 776-79 was due from the said George Peter. After his death another certificate dated 16 1 1968 was issued to the second respondent stating that the identical amount was due from the petitioner, the widow of the said George Peter and the other legal heirs, seven in number, mentioned in that certificate.

(3.) In order to answer the questions raised by counsel, it is necessary to refer to the definition of the term 'assessee' in the Act in S.2(d) as well as S.24, 30 and 41. I shall extract the definition as well as the sections.