SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax (Special) Kozhikode, Appellant
Versus
V.K. Ramunni Panikkar, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1397 of 1969, D/-5-10-1971.
Advocates appeared
Dr. V. A. Seyid Muhammad, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. A. G. Pudissery, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. A. R. Somanatha Iyer, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. P. Kesava Pillai, Advocate with him), for Respondent .
Hindu Succession Act – Sections 7, 24 – Arrears of tax – Receivers filed writ petition from which this appeal arises. – Therein they challenged right of Agricultural Income-tax Officer to collect arrears of tax and penalty from out of properties in their hands. – Question before High Court was whether tax due from Manavikraman Raja was realisable from assets in hands of receivers. – Writ petition was heard by a Full Bench of three Judges. – By a majority, High Court came to conclusion that only persons who were liable to pay tax in question were personal heirs of Sreemanavikraman Raja who had received income. – Court held that in view of Section.7 (3) of Hindu Succession Act, sthanam property stood divided at time of death of Sreemanavikraman Raja into 693 shares, out of which 692 shares went to members of Tarwad of deceased and one share to his personal heirs-wife and children. – It opined that tax due from Manavikraman Raja could have been levied and collected only from his personal heirs as they alone were liable to pay that tax. – As a result of that conclusion, it quashed impugned demand. – Held, Assessment made on Kunjunni Raja in his capacity as successor sthanamdar was an invalid assessment. – Legally he never became sthanamdar. – There was no sthanam after death of Manavikraman Raja. With death of Manavikraman Raja sthanam came to an kind. – Only persons who could have represented estate of Sreemanavikraman Raja were his personal heirs. – They were not made parties to assessment. – No notice of assessment proceedings was given to them. Kanjunni Raja was not one of his legal representatives. – Even if it is considered that sthanam properties had devolved on members of tarwad by succession, Kanjunni Raja alone could not have represented entire body of successors numbering 692. – There was no question of any bona fide enquiry by assessing authority. – It was clearly a case of misunderstanding legal position. – Further, it does not appear that Kunjunni Raja was assessed as legal representative of deceased stani. – He appears to have been assessed as successor stani liable to pay debts due from estate. – Assessment was not made in accordance with law, See Income tax Officer, Kozhikode v. Mrs. Susheela Sadanandan, (1965) 57 ITR 168 (SC). – In this view of matter it is not necessary for us to consider other provisions of Act providing for assessment and collection of tax due from a deceased person – Appeal Dismissed
Judgment
HEGDE, J. : One K. C. Sreemanavikraman alias Kattan Raja was the Zamorin of Calicut. He was a Sthanamdar. In respect of the sthanam property, he was liable to pay agricultural income-tax under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (in brief the Act) for the period from November 1, 1956 to March 31, 1958. Sreemanavikraman Raja died on May 2, 1958. Thereafter on May 12, 1958, Sthanam Properties (Assumption of Temparary Management and Control) and Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 1958 -(Act 28 of 1958) came into force. After the death of Sreemanavikraman Raja, the sthanam property was taken possession of by Kunhammaman Raja claiming to be the succeeding sthanamdar. In respect of the assessment due for the period November 1, 1956 to March 31, 1958, Kunhammaman Raja was assessed to tax as the successor sthanamdar. The said Kunhammaman Raja died on December 23, 1960 without making any payment. Thereafter the next senior most member in the Zamorin family, P. C. Cheria Kunjunni Raja took possession of the sthanam property. He also died soon after. During the lifetime of P. C. Cheria Kunjunni Raja, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for non-payment of the tax referred to earlier. P. C. Cheria Kunjunni Raja paid a sum of Rs. 20,100/- out of the tax and penalty due, as coercive proceedings were threatened to be taken against him. On the death of P. C. Cheria Kunjunni Raja, the next senior most member in the Zamorin family was K. C. Cheria Kunjunni Raja. When the Agricultural Income-tax Officer attempted to collect the tax imposed under the assessment order mentioned earlier from K. C. Cheria Kunjunni Raja, he filed a petition before that officer representing that he had nothing to do with the sthanam property and the sthanam property stood divided under S. 7 (3) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on the death of Sreemanavikraman on May 2, 1958. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had come into force on June 18, 1956. After the receipt of that representation, the Agricultural Income tax Officer passed an order on March 25, 1963 stating that as the successors of the Zamorin who died on 2-5-1958 had designed themselves as zamorin Rajas, they have the liability to pay the arrears due to the Government. .He directed K. C. Cheria Kunjunni Raja to pay the tax and penalty imposed. Aggrieved by that order K. C. Cheria Kunjunni Raja filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court challenging the validity of the threatened proceedings against him. The High Court quashed the demand notices issued by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to K.C. Cheria Kunjunni Raja. It held that the assessment having been made on Kunhammaman Raja, his share alone was liable to be proceeded against. It further held that the liability to pay that tax and penalty was that of the personal heirs of Kunhammaman Raja and that only to the extent, they had come into possession of the assets of the said Raja.
2. Thereafter the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Kozhikode ordered that as the entire sthanam propeity had devolved on the 693 members, all those persons were liable to pay the arrears of the tax and penalty. This order was made without notice to the parties.
3. Meanwhile in the partition suit in the zamorin s family, the court appointed two joint receivers. The receivers objected to the order of the Assistant Commissioner demanding the arrears of tax referred to earlier from them. They represented to him that the estate in their hands is not liable to pay the arrears of tax and penalty demanded. But those representations were not accepted by the authorities. They threatened to proceed against the assets in the hands of the receivers. At that stage, the receivers filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises. Therein they challenged the right of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to collect the arrears of tax and penalty from out of the properties in their hands. The question before the High Court was whether the tax due
followed : M. K. B. Menon v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.