TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontra, on behalf of the respondents. a counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this court to dismiss the writ petitions for want of merit. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavits and the counter affidavits together with all the other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration in these cases is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow these writ petitions or not. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavits are as follows : The petitioner herein and three others are owners of 126.87 ordinary acres in Anoor Village. Chennai, MGR District. They cultivate casuarina in the said land and they are duly assessed under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenging the orders of the first respondent. The said writ petition is pending. On January 31, 1992, the first respondent was pleased to take up the revision for hearing. During the course of hearing, the first respondent strongly relied on the circular bearing No. R. C. No. 17990/90/G2, dated November 22, 1990, issued by the third respondent and informed counsel for the petitioner, who appeared before him, that the revised assessment orders are being passed only on the basis of the abovesaid circular. Counsel for the petitioner herein had rightly pointed out that the circular issued by the third respondent cannot be in conflict with the provisions of enactment and placed a copy of the judgment of this court reported in [1991] LW 697. The first respondent has rejected the appeals by his order dated February 21, 1992. He did not mention anything about the said circular knowing fully well that it is in conflict with the provisions of the enactment. The act of the first respondent is improper and contrary to law. Having relied on the circular issued by the third respondent, he ought to have referred to the same in the order rejecting the appeal. According to the petitioner, the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and to levy additional tax, a notice under section 65A(3) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The total standard acres for the three years of 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 was worked out to 126.57. The total standard acres for 1990-91 was worked out to 114.17. The total tax on the above standard acres were worked out and levied and the difference payable was demanded, by issue of show-cause notice to the assessee on August 21, 1991. No objection was received from the assessee, and in the circumstances the assessment was confirmed. According to the respondents, it is very clear that the petitioner's lands can be called tope containing valuable timber trees. The casuarina tope could be considered to be timber trees and it is used as fire wood. In the circumstances, the casuarina tope would fairly fall under section 2(y) of the meaning of the Act and the assessment as 1 : 1 standard acres under the Act is justified. According to them, the assessment order dated November 11, 1991, clearly mentions about that from the first 20 standard acres of land, no assessment is made and assessed as nil tax, and next standard acres are only subjected to assessment. The show-cause notice proposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 65A(3) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The total tax on the standard acres were worked out and levied and the difference payable was demanded by issue of show-cause notices to the assessee on August 21, 1991. No objection was received from the assessee and in the circumstances the assessment was confirmed. Aggrieved against the order dated November 11, 1991, the petitioner preferred revisions to the first respondent. The first respondent took up the revision petition filed by the petitioner for hearing and considered the issue factually and final orders were passed in his R. P. Nos. 6 to 9/92, dated February 21, 1992, confirming the orders of the second respondent. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the lands in question are used for growing casuarina should be computed into standard acres on the basis of 3 : 1 and not as computed by the assessing authority as 1 : 1 standard acres. As rightly contended by the respondents, the contention of the petitioner that the ratio of 1 : 1 is applicable only to other than coconut trees and hence the adoption of the ratio 1 : 1 is not justified. But the definition of the concerned clause goes to show that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
