TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 of 1987 was only to revise the rates of plantation tax. We answer the above question in favour of the assessees and against the Department. - C.A. 979 OF 1999 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2004 - Judge(s) : S. N. VARIAVA., AR. LAKSHMANAN., S. H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S.H. KAPADIA J. - This batch of civil appeals by special leave against the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court dated August 28, 1998, raises the question as to the true scope and operation of section 1(2) of the Kerala Finance Act 18 of 1987, substituting Schedule I to the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960, with effect from July 1, 1987. Since the aforestated question arises in all the civil appeals, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. Since the facts in this batch of civil appeals are almost identical, we mention hereinbelow the facts of Civil Appeal No. 983 of 1999. E.K. Mathew and Brothers is a registered partnership firm carrying on, inter alia, the business of planting tea in Alampally Estate in Pasuppara, in the State of Kerala. For the assessment year commencing from April 1, 1987, the firm was assessed under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the said firm. At this stage, it may be mentioned that prior to October 21,1988, there was conflict of opinion in the decisions of the District Judges under section 9A. In the case of Udayagiri Rubber Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, it was held that, the plantation tax was assessable under section 3 at the rate prevalent on the first day of each financial year and that the same could not be altered during the year. Consequent upon this difference of opinion, the assessees and the State, both being aggrieved parties, came before the Division Bench by filing writ appeals and writ petitions, respectively. By the impugned judgment dated August 28, 1998, the Division Bench has held that the assessees were liable to be taxed for the assessment year 1987-88 on the basis of the rates specified in Schedule I as on April 1, 1987; that the revision in tariff in the middle of the assessment year would result in two assessments during the same year; that the substitution of the Schedule with effect from July 1, 1987, cannot affect the assessment for the assessment year 1987-88; that the liability to pay the tax got crystallised on April 1, each year as mentioned in section 3(2); a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... civil appeals. The basic point for determination is: whether in the present case, the revised Schedule introduced in the 1960 Act, by the Finance Act 18 of 1987, results in two assessments? To answer the aforesaid question, we need to examine the provisions of the said 1960 Act. The said Act is enacted to provide for the levy of an additional tax on plantations in the State of Kerala. Section 2(9) defines the expression "valuation date", in relation to the financial year for which an assessment is to be made to mean the first day of April of that year. Section 3(1) is the charging section. Under the said section, for every financial year, there shall be charged in respect of lands in the plantations, a tax at the rates specified in Schedule I. Under section 3(2), the tax assessed under the Act shall be payable for every financial year till the extent of plantation held by the assessee is revised. That, from the financial year, immediately following the revision, the tax assessed on the basis of such revision, shall be payable. Under section 3(3), the assessing authority may at any time, suo motu, revise the extent of plantation held by an assessee after hearing him. Under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960, as amended by the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Amendment Act, 1967 (19 of 1967), which has come into force on the 1st November, 1967, the rate of plantation tax has been raised from Rs. 8 per acre to Rs. 56 per hectare and the amount of tax fixed in the assessment already made under section 5/3(3) of the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, and communicated to you as per notice of demand .... No..... dated ..... requires revision on the basis of the rate of plantation tax fixed under the said Act as amended with effect from the financial year 1968-69 and whereas the details available in this office show that you hold plantations to the extent shown below, it is hereby informed that you are assessed to pay plantation tax amounting to Rs.... under the said Act as amended by Act 19 of 1967. Notice is hereby given that you may file objections, if any, on the above assessment to the undersigned within fifteen days of receipt of this notice failing which the assessment shown above will be made absolute on the presumption that you have no objections to the above assessment." Thus, the scheme of the Act read with the rules framed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of aggregate extent plantations in excess of two hectares; of plantations (other than coconut and arecanut)held by a person exceed two hectares but does not exceed four hectares 3. Where the (i) In the case of One hundred and aggregate extent plantations other fifty rupees per of plantations than coconut and hectare in excess held by a person arecanut of two hectares; exceeds eight hectares (ii) In the case of One hundred and coconut and arecanut fifty rupees per plantations hectare in excess of four hectares; 4. Where the (i) In the case of Two hundred rupees aggregate extent plantations other per hectare in of plantations than coconut and excess of two held by a person arecanut hectares; exceeds eight hectares but does not exceed fifteen hectares (ii) In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time. Even though the taxable event of a tax happens to be at a particular point of time, the levy and collection of such tax may be postponed, for administrative convenience, to a later date. Thus, in the context of the Central Excise Act, 1944, even though the taxable event is the manufacture of an excisable article, the duty is levied and collected at a later date for administrative convenience. Such later date is the date of removal of goods from the factory. As a corollary, the charging section cannot be limited or circumscribed by the machinery provisions of the Act. The machinery provisions cannot be interpreted so as to restrict the scope of the charging section. Liability to tax is distinct from quantification by assessment. In the case of Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT [1966] 59 ITR 767 (SC); AIR 1966 SC 1370, it has been held that the chargeability is independent of the passing of the Finance Act. In the light of our above discussions, we have to examine the effect of the Finance Act 18 of 1987, qua section 3 of the 1960 Act. The said Finance Act 18 of 1987, was enacted to give effect to the budget proposals for the financial year 1987-88. To augmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
