Skip to content


Cotacadu and Jeynacadu Estates Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Mysore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 419 of 1961
Judge
Reported in[1963]47ITR958(KAR); [1963]47ITR958(Karn)
ActsMysore Agricultural Income Tax - Sections 3; Coorg Agricultural Income Tax
AppellantCotacadu and Jeynacadu Estates
RespondentCommissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Mysore
Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 226; [anand byrareddy, j] establishment of petrol bunk prescription of distance of 300 meters between two adjacent fuel stations held, the prescription is in respect of fuel filling stations situated adjacent to each other and not to stations which are on opposite sides of road. there is no minimum distance between such stations on opposite sides of road, prescribed. proposed fuel station of respondent and existing fuel station of petitioner were on either side of a high way. prohibition of distance between two adjoining stations would not apply. - quite clearly, the mistake in this case, as we shall presently see, is apparent from the records of revision.hegde, j. 1. the assessee was a resident of the former coorg state which became a part of the new mysore state on november 1, 1956. the relevant accounting year with which are concerned in this petition is the financial year 1957-58. prior to the reorganisation of states, agricultural income-tax in the coorg state was being levied under the coorg agricultural income-tax act. that act continued to be in force till it was repealed by the mysore agricultural income-tax act, 1957 which came into force on october 1, 1957. section 3(1) of the mysore agricultural income-tax act provides : 'agricultural income-tax at the rate or rates specified in part 1 of the schedule to this act shall be charged for each financial year commencing from the first april, 1957, in accordance with and subject to.....
Judgment:

Hegde, J.

1. The assessee was a resident of the former Coorg State which became a part of the new Mysore State on November 1, 1956. The relevant accounting year with which are concerned in this petition is the financial year 1957-58. Prior to the reorganisation of states, agricultural income-tax in the Coorg State was being levied under the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act. That Act continued to be in force till it was repealed by the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 which came into force on October 1, 1957. Section 3(1) of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act provides :

'Agricultural income-tax at the rate or rates specified in Part 1 of the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each financial year commencing from the first April, 1957, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'

2. There is no dispute that the new State of Mysore had legislative competence to enact the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. The contention in this case is that as the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act continued to be in force till October 1, 1957, in view of section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act, the assessee should have been taxed for the period from April 1, 1957, till September 31, 1957, under the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act and not under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act. This contention was negatived by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coorg. He levied tax on the agricultural income of the assessee for that period also under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coorg, the assessee took up the matter in revision to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax in Mysore, Bangalore. The Commissioner by his order dated August 17, 1960, set aside the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coorg, and directed him to assess the assessee under the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act for the period in question. Later on the Commissioner thought that he had committed an error in passing that order and therefore he proceeded to revise under section 37 of the Act and restore the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coorg.

4. Sri K. R. Ramamani, the learned counsel for the assessee, has raised two contentions in this petition. They are : (1) on the facts of this case, the Commissioner had no competence to act under section 37; and (2) on a true interpretation of section 3 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, it should have been held that the State on and after October 1, 1957.

5. We do not think that either of these contentions is correct. Section 37 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act provides that the Commissioner may at any time within three years from the date of any order passed by him on appeal or in revision. Quite clearly, the mistake in this case, as we shall presently see, is apparent from the records of revision. Therefore he was competent to act under section 37.

6. Now coming to the second contention raised by Sri Ramamani, the answer to that question is found from the language of section 3, which we have already noticed. That section imposes a charge on all agricultural income 'for each financial year commencing from the 1st April, 1957'. In other words, agricultural incomes accruing on and after April 1, 1957, are within the reach of that Act. To the extent section 3 covers a field, the operation of the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act to that extent is Excluded.

7. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

8. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //