The challenge in the Original petition is against Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Plantation Tax Act. The facts in the original petition would reveal that against Ext.P1 order of assessment to plantation tax, for the years 1983-1984, 1984-1985, 1985-1986, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority who considered the contentions of the petitioner, with regard to the extent of plantation that was to be taken for the purposes of assessment, and remanded the matter to the original authority for the purposes of re-fixation of the extent, taking into account the actual extent on which plantation was being carried out, as against the aggregate area, for the purposes of assessment. It would appear that no orders were passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to Ext.P2 order of remand. Thereafter, by Ext.P3 notice dated 26.08.1998, the 1st respondent invoked the powers under Section 3(3) of the Plantation Tax Act for the purposes of Suo motu revising the extent of plantation, held by the petitioner and determined under Section 5 of Act. To this notice, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 reply contending inter alia that the notice issued to him was beyond the period of seven years as contemplated under Section 6A of the Act. It was, therefore, contended that the proposal in Ext.P3 notice, to revise the extent of plantation for the purposes of assessment, for the years 1986-1987 to 1991-1992, was beyond the period of limitation under Section 6A of the Act and, therefore, without jurisdiction. Ext.P5 is the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent after considering the objections furnished by the petitioner. In Ext.P5, the 1st respondent has revised the extent of plantation held by the assessee for the purposes of completing the assessment in respect of the years in question. Ext.P5 order of the 1st respondent was carried in appeal before the 2nd respondent appellate authority. Although, initially, Ext.P7 order was passed by the appellate authority, allowing the appeal by way of remand, the petitioner challenged the said order before this Court and, pursuant to a judgment of this Court, the 2nd respondent re- considered the appeal. It was thereafter that Ext.P8 order was passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the contentions of the petitioner with regard to limitation and remanding the matter, regarding extent of taxable area and exemption allowable to the petitioner, to the 1st respondent for adjudication. Ext.P8 order of the 2nd respondent is impugned in the original petition mainly on the ground that the said order did not consider favourably the contention of the petitioner with regard to the limitation prescribed under Section 6A of the Act.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein it is pointed out that Ext.P5 assessment order was passed under Section 3(3) of the Kerala Plantation Tax Act and not under Section 6A of the Act. It is pointed out that under Section 3(3) of the Act, there is no period of limitation prescribed for the purposes of exercise of suo motu powers of revision. In that view of the matter, therefore, there was no substance in the contentions of the petitioner in the original petition.
3. I have heard Smt.Meera Harisankar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that the original petition, in its challenge against Ext.P8 order of the 2nd respondent, must necessarily fail. Ext.P8 order is impugned solely on the ground that the said order did not consider favourably the contention of the petitioner with regard to the assessments being time barred. It is apparent from a reading of the averments in the original petition that the petitioner proceeds on the assumption that the power exercised by the 1st respondent while passing Ext.P5 order of assessment was one that was traceable to Section 6A to the Kerala Plantation Tax Act. A mere perusal of Ext.P3 notice that led to the passing of Ext.P5 order would reveal that the proceedings that culminated in Ext.P5 order were traceable to Section 3 of the Plantation Tax Act and not to Section 6A. Under Section 3(3) of the Act there is no period of limitation prescribed for the purposes of exercise of the suo motu power of revision. It is not in dispute that while exercising the revisional power, due notice was given to the petitioner, and his objections considered, prior to the passing of Ext.P5 order. In that view of the matter, I do not think it is open to the petitioner to impugn Ext.P5 order of the 1st respondent as one passed in excess of the jurisdiction vested in him. The contention of the petitioner, in the appeal against Ext.P5 order, was also the same and, in my opinion, was rightly rejected by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P8 order. I do not find anything illegal in Ext.P8 order warranting interference with the same in these proceedings. Resultantly, the original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no orders consequent to Ext.P8 order of remand has been passed by the 1st respondent. She would also point out that Ext.P8 order does not make any reference to the contention of the petitioner that no credit was given to the amounts already paid towards plantation tax for the years in question. Taking note of this submission, I make it clear that, at the time of passing consequential orders pursuant to Ext.P8 order, the 1st respondent shall take note of the aforementioned contention of the petitioner as well. Consequential orders in the matter shall be passed by the 1st respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns