KAPADIA, J. - (1.) THIS batch of civil appeals by special leave against the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court dated 28.8.1998 raises the question as to the true scope and operation of section 1(2) of the Kerala Finance Act, 18 of 1987 substituting schedule-l to the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960 w.e.f. 1.7.1987.
(2.) SINCE the aforestated question arises in all the civil appeals, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. Since the facts in this batch of civil appeals are almost identical, we mention hereinbelow the facts of civil appeal no.983 of 1999. 3.1. E.K. Mathew and Brothers is a registered partnership firm carrying inter alia the business of planting tea in Alampally estate in Pasuppara in the State of Kerala. For the assessment year commencing from 1.4.1987, the firm was assessed under section 3 of the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the 1960 Act"). Under assessment order dated 6.9.1988, the said firm was assessed to tax @ Rs.130/- per hectare for the period from 1.4.1987 to 30.6.1987 and at the revised rate of Rs.350/- per hectare for the remaining nine months period from 1.7.1987 to 31.3.1988. The said assessment was made pursuant to the substitution of schedule-l to the said 1960 Act by the Kerala Finance Act, 18 of 1987 w.e.f. 1.7.1987. By the said amendment, the tariff in existence as on the first day of the financial year, viz. 1.4.1987 stood revised in the midst of the year w.e.f. 1.7.1987. Consequently, in terms of the demand notice, the assessee was asked to pay the tax at the rate of Rs.130/- per hectare for the period 1.4.1987 to 30.6.1987 and at the rate of Rs.3507- per hectare for the period 1.7.1987 to 31.3.1988. 3.2. Aggrieved, by the assessment order dated 6.9.1988, the said firm preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Devicolam, Idukki district. By order dated 20.6.1989, the Sub-Collector, as an Appellate Authority, confirmed the assessment order dated 6.9.1988 and consequently dismissed the dappeal. 3.3. Against the said order of dismissal, the said firm moved an application under section 9A of the 1960 Act requesting the Sub-Collector to refer the fellowing question of law to the District Judge: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, plantation tax at the revised rate of Rs.350/- per hectare introduced by the Kerala Finance Act, 18 of 1987 w.e.f. 1.7.1987 was leviable for any part of the financial year 1987-88?" 3.3. In the meantime, by judgment and order dated 21.10.1988, in O.P. No.3610of 1988 entitled M.J. Vijaya Padman v. The State of Kerala and another, the learned single judge of the High Court of Kerala held that the amended rates applied from the commencement of the financial year 1987-88 as the object of the said Act 18 of 1987 was to give effect to the budget proposals for that year. Consequently, the applicability of the levy was upheld and original petitions filed by the assessees stood dismissed. 3.4. Placing reliance on the above judgment of the High Court, the Sub-Collector dismissed the application for reference under section 9A filed by the said firm. 3.5. At this stage, it may be mentioned that prior to 21.10.1988, there was conflict of opinion in the decisions of the District Judges under section 9A 3.6. In the case of Udayagiri Rubber Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, it was held, that, the plaptation tax was assessable under section 3 at the rate prevalent on the first day of each financial year and that the same could not be altered during the year. 3.7. Consequent upon this difference of opinion, the assessees and the State, both being the aggrieved parties, came before the Division Bench by filing writ appeals and writ petitions respectively. 3.8. By the impugned judgment dated 28.8.1998, the Division Bench has held that the assessees were liable to be taxed for the assessment year 1987-88 on the basis of the rates specified in schedule-l as on 1.4.1987; that the revision in tariff in the middle of the assessment year would result in two assessments during the same year; that the substitution of the schedule w.e.f. 1.7.1987 cannot affect the assessment for assessment year 1987-88; that the liability to pay the tax got crystallized on 1st April each year as mentioned in section 3(2); and consequently, assessment as per the new schedule could be made only from the assessment year 1988-89. The appellant-State then applied to this Court and obtained special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court. Mr. John Mathew, learned advocate for the appellant herein submitted that revision in the rates under the new schedule w.e.f. 1.7.1987 would not result in two assessments during the assessment year 1987-88; that the demand in question was for the differential tax and consequently, the question of two assessments during the same assessment year did not arise. He further contended that the object of enacting the State Finance Act, 18 of 1987 was to give effect to the budget proposals for the financial year 1987-88; that the effect of substituting schedule-l w.e.f. 1.7.1987 was to revise the rates of plantation tax during the financial year 1987- 88 and that object would stand defeated if the revised rates were held to be applicable on and from financial year 1988-89. Learned advocate submitted, that, in the circumstances the High Court had erred in holding that the revised rates were applicable only from assessment year 1988-89.
(3.) MR. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the assessees, submitted that under section 3(1) of the said 1960 Act, exigibility to tax was with reference to the extent of the lands comprised in the plantation as on the first day of each financial year; that under section 3(2), the tax assessed is payable for each financial year till the extent of the holding is revised; that such revised tax is payable only from the financial year immediately following the revision and consequently, it was urged, that, the revised rates could apply from the assessment year 1988-89. It was urged that the scheme of the said Act rules out two assessments during the same year. In this connection, it was pointed out that the assessing authority has demanded the said tax at the rate of Rs.130/- per hectare for the period 1.4.1987 to 30.6.1987 and at the rate of Rs.350/- per hectare for the period 1.7.1987 to 31.3.1988 which indicated that the assessees were assessed twice during the same year which was not permissible under the said Act. In the circumstances, it was urged, that, no interference was called for as there was no merit in the civil appeals. The basic point for determination is : whether in the present case, the revised schedule introduced in the 1960 Act, by the Finance Act, 18 of 1987, results in two assessments?;