RAVITH BIBI Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, writs of certiorari are prayed for to quash the orders of assessment made by the Agricultural INcome-tax Officer for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The petitioner is a minor. The affidavit filed by the guardian of the minor petitioner states that the deponent was appointed guardian of the petitioner, her person and property, under the Guardian and Wards Act in O.P. No. 26 of 1943 by the Sub-Court, Dindigul. The minor has been under the protection of this guardian. It is not in dispute that the properties, with respect to the income of which the assessments have been made, belong to the minor. For the two years no return was submitted, presumably on the ground that there is no assessable income from the property. It appears that the Agricultural INcome-tax Officer issued a notice to one Mahomed Ibrahim Rowther as the guardian of the minor under Section 16(2) of the Agricultural INcome-tax Act. This notice was served by affixture, and as no return was filed, the Officer made under Section 17(4) of the Act best of judgment assessments, and the taxes held to be due from the petitioner for the two years were fixed at Rs. 197.65 and Rs. 662.35. The contention of the guardian of the minor is that no assessment could have been made under Section 17(4) of the Act, unless a valid notice had been served as required by Section 16(2) of the Act. It is claimed that as the deponent is the properly appointed guardian, notice should have been given to her and that the absence of notice invalidates the assessments in question.

(2.) THE counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer denies the allegation that proper notice was not served. It is stated that a notice was sent to the Petitioner meaning thereby the minor in question, and as this notice was refused, it was served by affixture. It is also urged that Mahomed Ibrahim Rowther, care of whom the notice was issued, is the son of the deponent of the affidavit accompanying the petition. It is also stated that it was this Mahomed Ibrahim Rowther who paid the tax for the assessment year 1958-59. For those reasons, the adequacy of the notice served in the instant cases is sought to be supported. It is further urged that the petitioner has an effective remedy of filing a revision to the Commissioner under Section 34 of the Act and that these writ petitions should for that reason be dismissed.

(3.) IT hardly requires to be stated that the Department is not without a remedy, for the period of limitation for making a proper assessment has not run out.