GEORGE T A Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope and ambit of S.35 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 (Act 22 of 1950), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', arise for determination in this O. P. filed by an agriculturist challenging the legality and validity of a reassessment made under S.35 read with S.18(4) of the Act. Ext. P4 notice dated 29-8-'78 and Ext. P7 proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 6-2-1979 reassessing the petitioner to agricultural income tax and Ext. P8 order of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, 2nd respondent herein, confirming Ext. P7 are assailed and sought to be quashed mainly on the grounds that the essential requirements of S.35 of the Act have not been complied with, that Ext. P4 is not a valid notice as contemplated in law, that without issuing a valid notice satisfying the requirements under S.35 of the Act, Agricultural Income Tax Officer does not get any jurisdiction to reassess and that Ext. P7 assessment order is one passed without jurisdiction.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this O.P. lie in a short compass. The petitioner owns a cardamom estate within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. A return as contemplated under the Act was submitted by the petitioner showing his income from the cardamom estate for the years 1971-72,1972-73,1973-74 and 1974-75 (four years) and the same was duly scrutinised by the then Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Alwaye, who assessed him to agricultural income tax on the basis of the said return. Ext. P1 dated 23-12-1974 is a true copy of the order of assessment. This was challenged by the petitioner in revision before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax (Appeals), Ernakulam, who after hearing the petitioner and considering the materials on record modified Ext. P1 order granting certain relief to the petitioner as per Ext. P2 order. Thereafter, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer passed consequential order in accordance with Ext. P2 and that order is Ext. P3. According to the petitioner, the assessment for the said years has therefore become complete and final. More than one year after, Ext. P4 notice, dated nil and received by the petitioner on 29-8-1978, was issued by another Agricultural Income Tax Officer, who succeeded the previous officer, informing the petitioner that the assessment has been reopened under S.35 of the Act for the reason stated therein. Although the petitioner challenged the assessment made in pursuance of these notices, it was without success. Thereafter, proceedings were said to have been initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the amount due under the order of assessment. It is submitted that it was under these circumstances, as he has no other remedy, that the petitioner approached this Court seeking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents strongly supporting the orders under attack.