Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 2221 2000 SLD 2221 (2000) 82 TAX 342
Kerala High Court
Original Petition No. 108 of 1999-K, decided on 23-2-1999.
P. SHANMUGAM, J.
Abraham Mathew, Advocate, for the Petitioner.

HAJEE P. HUSSAIN KHAN

VS

AGRICULTURAL Income Tax OFFICER AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - Demand - Notice of sale u/s 49(2) of Revenue Recovery Act- Writ against - Maintainability - Assessee filed returns for assessment years 1974-75 to 1980-81 and not filing subsequent returns till 1991 - Assessment orders relating to period 1975-76 to 1990-91 attaining finality and not challenged before appellate authorities by assessee - Delay in filing writ - Suppression of material facts - Failure to avail of alternate remedies - Scope of writ - Question of - Whether refusal of notice was equivalent to service and petitioner could not contend that notices were not served - Held yes - Whether jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution could not be invoked in favour of a person who had not come to court with clear hands - Held yes - Article 226 ~ Constitution of India. Most of the notices and assessment orders were refused as revealed from the table shown above. The refusal of notice is equivalent to service and therefore the petitioner cannot contend that the notices were not served. Since orders have become final without seeking any ordinary remedy the petitioner approached this honourable court without any bona fides." The notices were .served on June 30, 1987, and February 2, 1990, respectively. Notices under section 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act was published on the property and served on the defaulter on December 14, 1990. The land was notified for auction sale on April 18, 1991. The auction was adjourned to July 30, 1991, October 14, 1991, December 16, 1991 and January 7, 1992. None of these facts, namely, the earlier served notices from the Year 1987 and the adjournments of the sale were mentioned in the original petition. It is further seen from the counter of the third respondent that the petitioner had transferred 15 cents of land from the 65 cents already attached earlier to his son as per settlement deed No. 1061 of 1997, dated June 4, 1997. The petitioner's son has filed the suit for the same. Thus there is a clear case of material suppression of facts and lack of bona fides in coming to the court without disclosing them. The jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked…
🔒
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