Case Details

Citation(s)
1973 SLG 613 1973 SLD 613 (1973) 91 ITR 488
Gauhati High Court
Civil Rule No. 151 of 1967 June 26, 1972
P.K. GOSWAMI C.J. AND BAHARUL ISLAM, J.
S.K. Ghose, J.P. Bhattacharjee and D.C. Goswami for the Petitioner Dr. J.C. Medhi and A.M. Mazumdar for the
Respondents

Sashi Prasad Baruah

v.

Agricultural Income Tax Officer

Law:

Section:

-Sections 19(1), (2), 20 (4) and 30 - Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 CASES REFERRED TO State of Assam v. D.C. Choudhuri [1970] 76 ITR 706 (SC) and Khanikar Tea Estates v. ITO [Civil Appeals Nos. 1633-1636 of 1967 dated 22-7-1971] (SC) JUDGMENT Goswami, C.J.-The petitioner is the managing director of Thengalbari Tea Estate (Private) Ltd. with its head office at Na-ali, Jorhat. The company carries on business in tea and owns and possesses several tea gardens in the State of Assam including the Thengalbari Tea Estate. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Shillong (respondent No. 1), by an order dated June 30, 1962, determined the income of the petitioner from cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea of Thengalbari Tea Estate at Rs. 3,00,000 for the assessment year 1957-58, and assessed the petitioner to pay the agricultural income-tax of Rs. 1,01,605 for the year. The petitioner states that no notice under section 19(2) of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, hereinafter called "the Act", was served upon him prior to the order of assessment. As the tax demand has not been complied with by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 issued certificate for recovery of the tax and a Bakijaiproceeding was started against the petitioner in the court of the Bakijai Officer, Jorhat. In connection with the aforesaid Bakijai proceeding, steps were taken in Land Sale Case No. 60/1968 for sale of immovable properties. 2. The petitioner raised in his petition several pleas including a challenge to the validity of some of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned Advocate-General, Nagaland, while arguing the petitioner's case before us, confines himself only to one submission. He contends that in the absence of a notice under section 19(2) of the Act served on the petitioner, the assessment is one under section 30 of the Act and hence the order of assessment is illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. It is specifically averred by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the petition that "no notice under section 19(2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner and the order of assessment was passed without service of such notice upon the petitioner."…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492