Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.32 seconds)
Geo Seafoods vs Additional Sales Tax Officer Iv And Anr. on 10 November, 1999 cites

Iswara Bhat vs Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 3 March, 1992

Subsequently, the second proviso was amended directing that all assessments relating to the years up to and including the year 1994 shall be completed on or before September 30, 1998. This amendment was made in the Finance Act of 1998, which came into force on July 29, 1998. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as the proceedings in question in the present case are concerned, they cannot be saved by the second proviso. Learned counsel submitted that the proviso does not revive the assessments which have already become barred in view of the long delay taken in disposing of the same. Learned counsel also submitted that it does not appear from the proviso that it has got retrospective effect. Further, counsel submitted that the dictum in the decision reported in Iswara Bhat v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax [1993] 200 ITR 238 (Ker) ; 1992 (1) KLT 568, has been accepted for a long time and the Legislature has not passed any legislation taking away the applicability of that decision. Further he submitted that it cannot be prescribed that the Legislature will revive a thing, which has been closed unless from the statute itself it has become clear that it reopens closed transactions. On the other hand learned Government Pleader submitted that it cannot be disputed that the proceedings in the case was pending on the date on which the Amendment Act came into force. If that be so, then the proviso will apply to all cases. The word "pending" in the proviso cannot be interpreted to be only those cases which are pending validly.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 14 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

Nelliampathy Tea And Produce Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 10 October, 1990

12. Thus on a perusal of the above decisions, it is clear that the repository of the statutory power should be reasonable, that means that the Damocles' sword should not hang endlessly, at the caprice of any statutory authority. The order passed by the statutory authority should be reasonable. It shall be rational and fair. The Revenue should be able to demonstrate that there were circumstances beyond control or other supervening events or insurmountable difficulties, for not completing the proceedings. The statutory power conferred was used in the right and proper way. As was observed by Paripoornan, J. in Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax [1991] 190 ITR 227 (Ker) ; ILR 1991 (2) Ker 68 in a system based on rule of law, there is no unfettered or untrammelled discretion in any statutory or public authority. In the case at hand, when the Finance Act came into force, already the assessment proceedings had been pending for more than 16 to 18 years. The counter-affidavit does not give any reason for this unexplained delay. It is seen from the pleadings in this case that the returns were filed in time and that the petitioner had also produced account books earlier. But there was inaction on the part of the authority for a long time, viz., nearly 15 years, to continue the proceedings. No justification is forthcoming from the assessing authority. Hence, we are of the view that the proceedings have become stale and irrational at the time when the Finance Act, 1993 came into force. These proceedings were kept in cold storage not intended to be taken out.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs Panampunna Estates (No. 1) on 23 June, 1997

In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Panampunna Estates 1997 KLJ (Tax Cases) 413, a division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the amendment of Section 35(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. Section 35(2) before its amendment provided that no order of assessment under Section 18 or reassessment under Sub-section (1) of Section 35 shall be made after the expiry of the three years from the end of the year in which the agricultural income was first assessable. The assessment order was passed on March 29, 1976. So, it was barred under the unamended Act and subsequently by Act 13 of 1976, the period was extended by five years. The question arose whether the assessment was valid or not.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - G Sivarajan - Full Document
1