AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2000. It further shows that as per the reference cited therein one Thomas Karukappilly, Puliara, Chittur, was a defaulter towards agricultural income-tax of an amount of Rs. 7,64,597 and a revenue recovery certificate had been received from the Income-tax Officer, Mannarkadu, for recovery of the amount. It is stated that subsequently the said defaulter had transferred the property and hence notice was affixed in the property and on enquiry, it was found that three persons have purchased properties from the defaulter on different dates. One Brijith, W/o. Abraham purchased two acres of property as per registered sale deed No. 620 of 1996 in Sy. No. 2019. One Eldho C. Paul purchased an extent of 4 acres 40 cents as per registered document No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter he continued to be in possession of the property and he placed reliance on exhibit P3 possession certificate issued by the Village Officer under date February 19, 1997. Exhibit P3 shows a total extent of 4 acres 15 cents of land covered by document Nos. 622 and 621 of 1996 of the Sub-Registry office, Agali, in Sy.No. 2019/part as properties in the possession of the petitioner. Later, the petitioner sold these properties to one Eldho C. Paul as per document No. 429 of 1998 of the Sub-Registry Office, Agaly. Exhibit P4 is produced as true copy of the sale deed. This property is also seen mentioned in exhibit P11 as property outstanding in the possession of the third parties. Later in 2000, the petitioner repurchased the property from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to file a return and produce account books. It is admitted that notice was not served on the third respondent as it was returned. Another notice was served in Form Nos. 8 and 10 on May 12,1999, and the same was also returned unserved. Thereafter, pre-assessment notice dated March 6, 2000, was despatched on March 13, 2000, which also could not be served. From the above statements, it can be seen that the first respondent had no case that it was a case of refusal to accept a notice by the third respondent. But it was a case where notice could not be served, still the first respondent passed an assessment order under date May 4, 2000, for the various years together, namely, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000. Assessment ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y authorities were understood to have taken steps to bring the properties for attachment and sale to realise the tax arrears. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, it is useful to refer to some of the statutory provisions, which have a bearing in deciding the issue arising for consideration in the case. Section 35 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, deals with the procedure for assessment and as per section 35(2) of the Act enables an Agricultural Income-tax Officer to issue notice to such person, if any in his opinion, is assessable to tax under this Act in respect of the agricultural income-tax during the previous year and requiring him to furnish a return within 30 days of the notice and in case any such pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rst charge on the properties of the assessee liable to pay such amount and where such amount or part thereof relates to the properties transferred by the assessee, also on such properties. On a reading of section 45, it can be seen that any amount of tax, penalty or any amount will be payable only in pursuance of any order passed under the Act or in pursuance of a return filed. In this case, no return was filed by the third respondent. Further, any such tax or other sum becomes payable only based on an order passed and the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is bound to serve upon the assessee a notice of demand enclosing a copy of such order of determination and only when such a notice of demand under section 45(1) of the Act is served on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r such purchase sold the property in favour of the third respondent defaulter so as to attract the provision under section 45(2) of the Act as on the date of repurchase in 2000. Section 45(2) of the Act only says that there shall be a first charge on the property owned by the defaulter concerned or transferred after the demand is served. In the present case, in 1999 the third respondent has ceased to be the owner itself of the property, hence there is hardly any case for the first respondent to contend that based on orders of assessment, liability has arisen on the part of the third respondent so as to fasten that liability on the property in question. It was nextly contended that as per section 62(3) of the Act, when a charge is created....