Disposed

Maratt Rubber Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2009OP/27724/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court upheld the method of assessing rubber trees based on Rubber Board statistics (135 trees per acre) instead of physical verification but directed the assessing authority to recalculate the total number of trees due to identified arithmetic errors in the provisional and final assessment orders and issue fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to recalculate the number of rubber trees and revise the tax payable, issuing fresh orders within one month due to calculation mistakes.

Maratt Rubber Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930

¶5

OP.No. 27724 of 1999(A)

¶6

----------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

MARATT RUBBER LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAMPAD, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, SRI.P.A.HARISH.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

-----------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PLANTATIONS TAX ACT, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM.

¶15

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PLANTATIONS TAX ACT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP.

¶17

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P. NO. 27724/1999-A:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. L. 3187/1984 DTD. 03/09/1989 ISSUED UNDER THE KERALA PLANTATION TAX ACT FOR THE YEARS 1982-83 TO 1988-89.

¶22

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR DTD. 12/06/1989.

¶23

EXT.P.2.(A): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P.2. IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION.

¶24

EXT.P.3 (1): COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1982-83, DTD. 23/10/1989.

¶25

EXT.P.3 (2): COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1983-84, DTD. 23/10/1989.

¶26

EXT.P.3 (3): COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1984-85.

¶27

EXT.P.3 (4): COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1985-86.

¶28

EXT.P.3 (5): COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1986-87.

¶29

EXT.P.3 (6): COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1987-88.

¶30

EXT.P.3 (7): COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1988-89.

¶31

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 10/01/1990 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO SET ASIDE THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR.

¶32

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 28/02/1990 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RECEIVE DOCUMENTS INTO EVIDENCE.

¶33

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 18/08/1990 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RECORD THE OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR.

¶34

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27/07/1994 IN O.P. NO. 10718/1989.

¶35

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 23/01/1996 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO CONDUCT LOCAL VERIFICATION OR INSPECTION.

¶36

O.P. NO. 27724/1999-A:

¶37

EXT.P.8 (A): COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 09/02/1996 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RECORD OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR.

¶38

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 10/03/1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RECORDING OBJECTIONS, REMARKS AND TO CAUSE INSPECTION TO ASCERTAIN THE EXTENT OF THE HOLDING.

¶39

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 22/12/1998 OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY.

¶40

EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD. 29/01/1999 UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE PLANTATION TAX ACT.

¶41

EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 16/02/1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RECEIVE DOCUMENTS IN THE APPEAL.

¶42

EXT.P.13.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 09/04/1984 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2.

¶43

EXT.P.13.B: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/03/1985 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2.

¶44

EXT.P.13.C: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 08/10/1985 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2.

¶45

EXT.P.13.D: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 03/11/1986 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2.

¶46

EXT.P.13.E: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 05/11/1986 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2.

¶47

EXT.P.13.F: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/03/1988 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2.

¶48

EXT.P.13.G: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/05/1989 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2.

¶49

EXT.P.13.H: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21/10/1995 SENT BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE R.2.

¶50

EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/06/1999 ISSUED BY THE R.3. APPELLATE AUTHORITY.

¶51

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

prv.

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

O.P.No. 27724 of 1999

¶58

==================

¶59

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T

¶60

The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and an assessee under the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960. In this original petition they are challenging the assessment orders and appellate order for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1988-89 under the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960. The petitioner filed returns which were rejected and Ext.P1 series of provisional assessment orders were issued to the petitioner calling for objections for the said years. The petitioner filed objections which were not found acceptable and accordingly, Ext.P10 final assessment order was passed confirming the provisional assessments. Against the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority and by Ext.P14 appellate order, the appellate authority dismissed th appeal. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1, P10 and P14 orders in this original petition.

¶61

Two contentions are raised before me. The first is that instead of conducting a physical verification of the number of rubber trees in the properties belonging to the petitioner, the assessing authority adopted an artificial method of fixing the total extent and calculating the number of trees adopting the statistics issued by the Rubber Board, wherein, according to the Rubber Board, a mature

¶62

o.p.27724/99 2

¶63

rubber plantation would contain 135 rubber trees per acre. The contention of the petitioner is that the Kerala Plantations Tax Act does not contemplate such an artificial method of ascertaining the number of trees and the number of trees should be ascertained by physical verification. He further submits that the statistics of the Rubber Board is not absolute. The number of trees in plantations are likely to vary depending on very many factors like nature of terrain, climate etc. for which provision has not been made. The counsel for the petitioner would further submit that large number of rubber trees was destroyed by fire and appropriate reduction in respect of the same has not been allowed. The second contention is that fixation of total extent itself is wrong. The assessing authority had not considered the documents submitted by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner had sold large extent of land subsequent to 1981-82. He also points out that there is mistake in the calculation.

¶64

This is stoutly opposed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. According to him, the extent being very large, it would not be possible for physical verification of all estates to decide the actual number of rubber trees. The Rubber Board, which is the expert body in the country regarding rubber cultivation, after taking into account all factors affecting rubber plantations under various conditions has provided scientific data that in a mature rubber

¶65

o.p.27724/99 3

¶66

plantation at the time of tapping, there would be an average of 135 rubber trees per acre, which has also been adopted by the assessing authority for assessment in this case. He further submits that for the assessment year 1981-82 also the very same method was adopted, which was challenged by the petitioner and this Court had upheld such method of assessment and therefore, the petitioner is now estopped from contending otherwise. As far as the second contention is concerned, the learned Government Pleader would submit that all the documents produced by the petitioner regarding subsequent sale of properties have been considered and taken into account. However, only registered sale deeds were taken into account and sale agreements which are not acceptable for the purpose of deciding ownership, have not been taken into account. The Government Pleader, therefore, supports the impugned orders.

¶67

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶68

I am also of opinion that the extent of properties being

¶69

very large it would not be practicable to have physical verification of the number of trees by counting each tree. The Rubber Board being an expert body regarding rubber plantations, the average number of trees in a mature plantation fixed by them after years of scientific studies can be accepted as the basis for assessment under the Kerala Plantations Tax Act also. In fact it is not disputed before me by the

¶70

o.p.27724/99 4

¶71

counsel for the petitioner that assessment for the year 1981-82 also has been completed following the very same method and the said assessment had been upheld by this Court. That being so, I do not find any merit in the contention that the method adopted by the assessing authority for fixation of the number of yielding rubber trees is in any way unsustainable. The assessing authority had taken into account all the registered sale deeds produced by the petitioner to prove the subsequent sale of properties and only balance has been computed for the purpose of assessment under the Plantations Tax Act. This is very clear from the fact that for each subsequent year of assessment the extent is less than the previous year. The petitioner cannot under law insist that for the purpose, sale agreements should also be taken into account. That being so, the extent of property determined by the assessing authority cannot also be held to be unsustainable. Once the extent of property and the number of trees per acre has been so determined, the balance is only a matter of arithmetic calculation. That being so, I do not find anything wrong with the method adopted by the respondents.

¶72

However, I find merit in the contention that there is actually calculation mistake in the assessment orders. In Ext.P1 assessment order I find that the number of trees calculated on the basis of the extent at the rate of 135 per acre is not correct. For eg.

¶73

o.p.27724/99 5

¶74

for the year 1982-82 the total extent is given as 380 hectares and the total number of rubber trees is calculated as 1,52,000. It does not appear to be correct. The calculation for the subsequent years also does not appear to be correct. To that extent, the computation is bad. In the above circumstances, while upholding the fixation of extent of land and the method of calculation of number of trees, I direct the 2^nd respondent to recalculate the number of rubber trees and revise the tax payable accordingly. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶75

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶76

sdk+

¶77

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

===============

O.P.No. 27724 of 1999-A

¶83

================

¶84

J U D G M E N T

¶85

13^th January, 2009

Maratt Rubber Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maratt Rubber Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby N.V. Vs S.K.Ratheeshkumar

Dr.R.Prakasam Vs Institute of Management

M.N.Somasekharan Nair Vs the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode

S.Shamsudheen Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.

Jaimon James Vs Corporation of Cochin

Valiya Eri Padasekara Samithi Vs the Union of India and Others