M.A.M. Kasi Chettiar Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/723719
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnApr-07-1994
Case NumberO.P. No. 6132 of 1992 E
Judge T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.
Reported in[1994]210ITR583(Ker)
ActsKerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950; Constitution of India - Article 226
AppellantM.A.M. Kasi Chettiar
RespondentAgricultural Income-tax Officer
Appellant Advocate N. Venkatarama Iyer, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S. Vijayan Nair, Senior Government Pleader
Excerpt:
- t.l. viswanatha iyer, j.1. what is under challenge in this writ petition is exhibit p-11, a notice to show cause why the registration accorded to the firm, messrs. subramanian rubber estate, for the years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 should not be cancelled and the firm treated as an unregistered firm. the petitioner was called upon to show cause against the proposal by the notice, exhibit p-11. the petitioner filed this original petition and this court admitted the writ petition and stayed further proceedings pursuant to exhibit p-11 on may 15, 1992.2. normally, i would not have entertained this writ petition which is only against a notice to show cause. but then it is seen that the assessing authority has for the subsequent year 1990-91 granted registration to the firm by his proceedings, exhibit p-12, dated january 23, 1993. the registration was granted on the same set of facts and if that be so there is no reason why exhibit p-11 proposing to cancel the registration for the prior years should be sustained. this is all the more so because the registration has been proposed to be cancelled on some technical ground that the signature of one m. s. p. subramanian, who was the executor of the will of one of the partners known as m. lakshmi achi in the application for renewal of the registration of the firm, is not authenticated. the genuineness of the firm as such is not in dispute.3. having regard to all these circumstances, i am inclined to quash exhibit p-11 though, as stated earlier, in the normal course i am not inclined to interfere with what in effect is only a notice to show cause.4. for the reasons stated above, i allow the original petition and quash exhibit p-11. there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.

1. What is under challenge in this writ petition is exhibit P-11, a notice to show cause why the registration accorded to the firm, Messrs. Subramanian Rubber Estate, for the years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 should not be cancelled and the firm treated as an unregistered firm. The petitioner was called upon to show cause against the proposal by the notice, exhibit P-11. The petitioner filed this original petition and this court admitted the writ petition and stayed further proceedings pursuant to exhibit P-11 on May 15, 1992.

2. Normally, I would not have entertained this writ petition which is only against a notice to show cause. But then it is seen that the assessing authority has for the subsequent year 1990-91 granted registration to the firm by his proceedings, exhibit P-12, dated January 23, 1993. The registration was granted on the same set of facts and if that be so there is no reason why exhibit P-11 proposing to cancel the registration for the prior years should be sustained. This is all the more so because the registration has been proposed to be cancelled on some technical ground that the signature of one M. S. P. Subramanian, who was the executor of the will of one of the partners known as M. Lakshmi Achi in the application for renewal of the registration of the firm, is not authenticated. The genuineness of the firm as such is not in dispute.

3. Having regard to all these circumstances, I am inclined to quash exhibit P-11 though, as stated earlier, in the normal course I am not inclined to interfere with what in effect is only a notice to show cause.

4. For the reasons stated above, I allow the original petition and quash exhibit P-11. There will be no order as to costs.