TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), that for the assessment year 1987-88 pertaining to the accounting year April 1, 1986 to March 31, 1987, the petitioner was subjected to final assessment and the order which was passed under section 17(3) of the Act by the first respondent on the income received from rubber amounting to Rs. 1,16,50,391. While so, the first respondent by notice dated September 12, 1992, purporting to be under section 35 of the Act alleged that there was escape of income-tax which was liable to be brought to tax further alleging that the second respondent had issued guidelines for the aver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... former notice for this notice, time was fixed for filing objections by September 30, 1992, thus it is very clear that for one and the same assessment year 1987-88 under the Act, the first respondent is invoking his power of revision under section 35 of the Act by means of two distinct and separate notices spelling out the so-called escape of income differently thus acting in utter disregard of the authority conferred on him as a quasi-judicial authority ; that the two notices impugned in the writ petitions are patently wrong and illegal and are liable to be quashed ; that the two notices purporting to be under section 35 of the Act served by the first respondent on the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 of the Act are ex ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same was finalised ; that as per the guidelines of the second respondent, the average yield per acre is 600 kgs. per year and it has been fixed in consideration of various aspects and in consultation with the concerned departments including the Rubber Board ; that in view of the short levy of tax, notice under section 35 of the Act was issued to the assessee so as to enable them to give their objections fixing the time till September 30, 1992 ; that the time was considered to be short, the petitioner was at liberty to pray for some more time, but now the petitioner has approached this court in spite of having alternate remedy. The counter affidavit would further state that the petitioner has shown the production value at Rs. 98,58,164 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ials placed on record and upon hearing learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that merely based on the two notices issued by the first respondent under section 35 of the Act which are impugned herein, offering certain reasons that those notices have been issued in an irregular manner, the petitioner has come forward to file the above two writ petitions at one and the same time, each petition connecting to one notice, in spite of an appeal provided under the provisions of the Act for such matters. So far as the respondents are concerned, they do not come forward to argue that the petitioner cannot testify the validity of such notice issued whether it is on escaped assessment or for any other reasons. But the simple question that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....torage and his request for such an interim stay having been answered in the affirmative by this court at the admission stage, the petitioner for the last eight years, has been successfully evading further proceeding by the Department. The respondents are also lethargic in the sense that they did not initiate any measure to vacate the interim stay granted, showing to this court that regular statutory remedy is available ; that after four years of the institution of the writ petition and the stay granted in the WMPs, the respondents have moved for vacating the stay in the year 1996 and the learned Single judge who dealt with that rightly opining that it was not the proper time to vacate the stay and it was fit to hear the writ petition its....