E P EAPPEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In tills writ petition Mr. S. Easwara Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the two notices, issued by the Income Tax Officer, Trivandrum, evidenced by Exts. P 1 and P 2. Those two notices are both dated 20-10-1962 and have been issued under S.22(3)(i) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The effect of these notices is to ask the Board of Revenue, the 2nd respondent in these proceedings, to pay the amounts, which, according to the income tax Officer, are held as amounts due to the petitioner, partner of the two firms mentioned therein, namely the Trivandrum Tobacco Combines, Trivandrum under Ext. P 1, and the Trivandrum Tobacco Corporation, Trivandrum, under Ext. P 2.

(2.) It will be seen that according to the petitioner he was a partner in two firms, namely Trivandrum Tobacco Combines, Trivandrum, and the Trivandrum Tobacco Corporation, Trivandrum. According to the petitioner, in respect of the arrears of income tax stated to be due by the Trivandrum Tobacco Combines, an amount of Rs. 78,607-04 is sought to be recovered by the Income Tax Officer from the petitioner, who was a partner in the said firm at the material time. Similarly, the petitioner alleges that he was a partner of the Trivandrum Tobacco Corporation, Trivandrum, and that in respect of the arrears of Income Tax stated to be due from that firm in the sum of Rs. 1,00,578-81, the said amount is again sought to be recovered from the amounts held by the Board of Revenue really as amounts due to the petitioner himself.

(3.) The petitioner states that the State Government have directed the refund of a fairly large amount to him on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Abdulkadir v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 922 . In brief, according to the petitioner, certain amounts have been recovered from him by the State Government under the Travancore Cochin Tobacco Act and the rules framed thereunder, and though the challenge that was made by him before the High Court in respect of that matter was unsuccessful, the petitioner appears to have ultimately succeeded in his contention before the Supreme court. On the basis of the said decision of the Supreme Court, the State Government, as I mentioned earlier, has directed refund of certain amounts to the petitioner.