MOOSA SAIT Vs. AGRL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition comes before us on a reference by Dr. Justice T. Kochu Thommen. The order of reference reads:

(2.) The petitioner is a charitable institution. For the assessment years 1959-60 and 1962-63 to 1965-66, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Alwaye fixed the tax payable by the institution under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, for short, the Act at Rs. 2,22,454.41 Ps (for all the years together). This amount was fully paid in time though the petitioner challenged the orders of assessment in appeals. By a common order dated 22-7-1967, all the appeals were allowed, setting aside the orders of assessment on the ground that the income of the institution is income derived from properties held under a Trust solely for religious and charitable purposes and therefore exempt from levy of Agricultural Income Tax. The order also contained a direction in the following terms:

(3.) When assessment orders of 1969-70 and 1970-71 with notices of demand were served on the petitioner by a letter of 15-3-1971 (marked as Ext. P2 here), the petitioner prayed for adjustment of the amount due to the institution on account of the aforementioned direction for refund towards those subsequent demands. The assessment of 1969-70 and 1970-71 were for Rs. 1,00,025.28 and Rs. 84,736.32. It was alleged in Ext. P2 that the institution had already applied for the amounts wrongly collected. In reply to Ext. P2, the petitioner was informed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, that the earlier appellate decision was based on a ruling rendered by the Appellate Tribunal which had been subsequently quashed by the High Court. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer would further say that as the basis of the appellate order was no more in existence, the same was vitiated by error apparent from the records and is rectifiable. The letter (the office copy of which is marked as Ext. P3 in the case) would then state that petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the amount and the failure to remit the tax dues for the subsequent years will result in the imposition of the penalty on the petitioner, On the insistence of the demand for payment of the tax assessed for the subsequent years, without prejudice to the contentions the institution had raised, the amount of Rs, 84,736.32 was paid (assessment for the period 1970-71, the lesser of the two demands then made).