TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , to June 30, 1979, and regarding income from other properties (Rubber Plantations), it is from April 1, 1979, to March 31, 1980. The petitioners submitted their returns for the year 1980-81 on September 29, 1980. Section 17A was inserted in the Agricultural Income-tax Act, by Kerala Act 17 of 1980. Section 2 of the said Act gave retrospective effect to the provision from April 1, 1980. The newly enacted provision required the assessees to pay the admitted tax as per the returns. The return should be accompanied by proof of payment of such tax. Admittedly, the petitioners did not comply with the same. The 1st respondent-assessing authority issued exhibit P-1 order dated March 30, 1982, demanding payment of such admitted tax on or before Apr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery month during which the default continues : Provided that, before levying any such, penalty, the person shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) When any tax is due, under this section or any penalty is due in consequence of any order passed under this section, the assessing authority shall serve on the person a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable." The analogous provision that is relied on in this case is section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That section was originally inserted by the Finance Act, 1964, with effect from April 1, 1964. Later it was substituted by the, Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971. It was still later amended and substituted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is ultra vires and void. According to counsel, the said provision is similar to section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was held to be violative of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution by a Bench of the Madras High Court in the decision A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO [1973] 90 ITR 116 (Mad) (The court considered section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the section stood originally as inserted by Finance Act, 1964). For the reasons stated therein, section 17A(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act is violative of article 300A of the Constitution and so infirm. Government Pleader, Mir. Divakaran Pillai, controverted the above proposition and brought to my notice the decision of the Calcutta High Court, Gunny Exporters Pvt Ltd. v. ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicate all such issues at present. It is premature to adjudicate these issues raised by the parties. Exhibit P-1 is an order directing the petitioners to pay the admitted tax as per the returns. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute the said proposition. There cannot be any attack on exhibit P-1 order. That required only payment of admitted tax, it is warranted by the terms of section 17A(1) of the Act which is not challenged. Exhibit P-2 notice dated May 11, 1982, served on the petitioners, required them to pay the admitted tax and also informed them that on failure to pay the admitted tax, a penalty under section 17A(3) will be levied. The petitioners are bound to pay the admitted tax as per the returns. They did not do so as envisa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
