CHELOOR NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point raised in this writ application seems to be covered by the decision of the Supreme Court. The petitioner was assessed to agricultural Income Tax for the year 1961-62 by Ext. P-1 order dated 25-1-1962. By this order, supertax was also imposed on the family of the petitioner, which is a Namboodiri family. There was an appeal, and by Ext. P-2 appellate order, the super tax imposed was cancelled on the ground that S.66 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, did not apply to Namboodiri families. Since then, the Agricultural Income Tax Act was amended by Act 12 of 1964 with retrospective effect enabling the imposition of super tax also on Namboodiri families. So, a notice was issued for reopening the assessment which was concluded by Ext. P-2 dated 11-9-1963, and though objections were raised, super tax was imposed by an order dated 9-6-1964, Ext. P-8. It is this order that is impugned before this Court.

(2.) The argument is based on S.57 of the Act, which reads as follows:

(3.) S.35 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, is the provision which enables corrections being made of patent errors. There is also a Section similar to that in the Agricultural Income tax Act, 1950, which is S.36. S.35 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, enables the imposition of tax on escaped income as well as corrections being made when lower rates are applied. If the order is not final because of S.36 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act - and so it must be taken in the light of the Supreme Court decision - it cannot be final also because of S.35. In this view, S.57 of the Act would have no application. This must be so for more than one reason. The matter is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court, and secondly, as far as possible I must give effect to the legislative enactment Act 12 of 1964. This has been intentionally and purposefully made for the purpose of imposing super tax on such families as well and has with that intention been made retrospective. The interpretation sough to be given by counsel for the petitioner, If accepted, would negative that intention and I cannot do so unless for compelling reason. I find no such reasons.