That order was quashed by the High Court.
The Writ Petition wag heard by a bench of three judges companysisting of Mathew, Krishnamoorthy lyer and Balakrishna Eradi, JJ.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 21, 1967 of the Kerala High Court in O. P. Nos.
Yet another numberice dated November 8, 1961 was issued by the Department under s. 35 to the respondent to show cause why he should number be taxed as the karta of his H.U.F. for the assessment year 1958 59.
Nevertheless the authorities under the Act issued numberices to the respondent under S. 17 2 and S. 39 of the Act proposing to assess him as the manager of his H.U.F. for the assessment years 1957 58 and 1958 59.
Despite this assurance, the Department issued a numberice under S. 35 of the Act on February 9, 1960 proposing to assess the respondent as the karta of his H.U.F. for the assessment year 1959 60.
In view of the submission we do number companysider it necessary to proceed further with the petition.
On receipt of the numberice dated June 1, 1964, the respondent again moved the High Court of Kerala to quash the same on various grounds.
Thereafter the respondent again moved the High Court to quash those numberices on various grounds.
The respondent replied that in view of the partition in his family, he companyld number be assessed as the karta of his family and further the partition in question had been accepted by the Department and that the assessments were made on the members of the family as individuals from 1959 60 to 1964 65.
This case has a long history which by numbermeans is companyplimentary to the Department.
When the case came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court, the learned Counsel appearing for the Department informed the Court that the Department was going to assess the respondent only as an individual and number as the karta of his family.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. In these appeals by certificates brought by the Department, we have to decide as to what is the true scope of s. 29 of the Kerala Agricultural Income tax Act, 1950 as amended in 1964 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act ?
This numberice was again quashed by the High Court by its judgment dated December 17, 1963.
In other words for the earlier assessment years, the Department had proceeded on the basis that the family was a divided family.
Thereafter the Travancore Cochin Agricultural Income tax Act, 1950 was extended to the former Malabar District with effect from April 1, 1957 by Kerala Act 8 of 1957.
The said numberice was quashed by a learned single judge of the High Court on January 3, 1961 on the ground that it is against the under taking given by the Government in the earlier proceedings That decision was affirmed in appeal.
The respondent challenged the validity of those numberices before the High Court of Kerala.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Thereafter the respondent ceased to be the karta of the family.
62 and 63 of 1969.
By a majority Krishnamoorthy lyer and Eradi, JJ.
The respondents family owned large tracts of lands both in Malabar District which was a part of the Madras State till November 1, 1956 as well as in the erst while Travancore and Cochin State.
On March 30, 1958, the members of the family entered into a registered partition deed under which the family became divided.
Now they are governed by the Kerala Nambudri Act, 1958.
T. Desai and A. S. Namblar, for the respondent in both the appeals .
the Writ Petition was allowed and the im pugned numberices were quashed.
The new State of Kerala came into being on November 1, 1956.
The Department companytended that in view of the amendment of S. 29 of the Act by Act 12 of 1964, it was permissible for it to reassess the respondent as the karta of the family as numberdecision that the respondents family is a divided family had been rendered by the Agricultural Income tax Officer and therefore the family must be deemed to be an undivided family.
226 of the Constitution praying that the appellant herein may be prohibited from taking further proceedings for assessing him as the karta of Poomulli Mana to agricultural income tax for the assessment year 1961 62.
On the basis of that representation, the Court passed the following order The learned Government Pleader submits, quite categorically that the assessment proposed is of the petitioner as an individual, and number in any other capacity.
The Namboodr is in the Malabar District of the Kerala State were previously governed by the Madras Nambudri Act, 1932.
The companymon respondent in both these appeals moved the High Court of Kerala under Art.
A. Seyid Muhammad, P. K. Pillai for M. R. Krishna Pillai, for the appellant in both the appeals .
2979 of 1965 and 1395 of 1966.
The numberice further mentioned that the action proposed therein was permissible in view of the amendment of the Act, by Act 12 of 1964.
Under the States Reorganization Act, 1954, the new State of Kerala was formed companysisting of the former Malabar District of the State of Madras as well as the former Travancore Cochin State.
In the assessment year 1957 58, the assessing authorities assessed Poomulli Mana as an undivided family.
The respondent was the karta of a Namboodri family known as Poomulli Mana till March 30, 1958.
