ANANDAPUR TEA ESTATE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner No. 1 which is a tea estate, namely, Anandapur Tea Estate, now owned by petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 has challenged the, legality and validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, dated October 16, 1989, contained in annexure-3 to the writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. A.K. Sharma, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) THE only contention advanced by Dr. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that both the appellate authority and the revisional authority misinterpreted the provisions laid down under Section 13 of the Act. It is contended by Dr. Saraf that even though there was a gift, the factual position is that both the brothers are managing the tea estate under the same name, i.e., Anandapur Tea Estate, by a common manager and hence the petitioners are entitled to make payment of the taxes showing both petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 as co-owners with definite interest in the tea estate. It is, however, admitted by Dr. Saraf that the late Jogananda Deva Goswami who was the original owner of the tea estate gifted half of the aforesaid tea estate to his eldest son, namely, petitioner No. 2, by executing a registered deed of gift and similarly he also gifted the remaining half of the tea estate to his second son, namely, petitioner No. 3, by executing a separate deed of gift. In the course of his arguments, Dr. Saraf has also stated that the gifts so made were also duly accepted by petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. It is, therefore, quite clear from the submission of Dr. Saraf that the aforesaid tea estate was bifurcated by two separate deeds of gift and both the donees accepted the gifts. This being the accepted position of the case, there is no difficulty to conclude that petitioner No. 2 became an absolute owner of half of the tea estate and similarly petitioner No. 3 also became the owner of the remaining half of the aforesaid tea estate. But even though the aforesaid tea estate has been bifurcated and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have become owners separately, it is contended by Dr. Saraf that their interest is still joint and the management of the tea estate is virtually being carried on by a common manager. THErefore, the petitioners are entitled to be assessed to tax showing both petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 as co-owners having definite interest in the tea estate.