TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Invalidates Proviso Restricting Appeals in Kerala Plantations Tax Rules</h1> <h3>Joseph Versus Tahsildar, Meenachil</h3> Joseph Versus Tahsildar, Meenachil - [1978] 112 ITR 410, 1977 CTR 3 Issues:Challenge to the vires of rule 10(a) of the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Revision of Assessment Rules, 1965. Appeal against assessment under section 3(3) of the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960. Interpretation of section 9(1) of the Act regarding the right to appeal. Validity of the proviso to rule 10(a) of the Rules.Analysis:The judgment concerns the challenge to the vires of rule 10(a) of the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Revision of Assessment Rules, 1965, in an original petition. The petitioner's father, an assessee under the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, received exhibit P-1 notice for revision of assessment for the period 1965-66 to 1969-70. Despite not filing objections, he was assessed to plantation tax based on exhibit P-1 notice, leading to the issuance of exhibit P-2 notice of demand. The petitioner's father's appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer due to the lack of objections to exhibit P-1 notice. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed based on the inapplicability of appeal against the assessment. The petitioner contested exhibit P-2 and exhibit P-4 in the petition, alongside challenging rule 10(a) of the Rules.The petitioner argued that an appeal should lie against the assessment under section 3(3) of the Act, citing section 9(1) which allows appeals against assessments except those under specific sections. The petitioner's counsel highlighted rules 5(a) and 10(a), emphasizing that the proviso to rule 10(a) restricting appeals against assessments under rule 5(a) is ultra vires of section 9(1) of the Act. Conversely, the Government Pleader supported the validity of the proviso, stating that no appeal is warranted when an assessee does not object to the notice data.The court sided with the petitioner, ruling that section 9(1) only bars appeals against assessments under specific sections, not including section 3(3). The proviso to rule 10(a) unlawfully prevents appeals against assessments under section 3(3), rendering it ultra vires of section 9(1). Consequently, the court set aside exhibit P-4 and directed the Board of Revenue to issue fresh orders on the revision. The proviso to rule 10(a) was declared ultra vires to the extent it restricts appeals beyond the specified sections. The original petition was allowed with no costs imposed.
TaxTMI 