Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 18 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010027182015
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7505/2015
MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED
A PUBLIC LTD. CO. GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES
ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NO.4, MANGOE LANE, KOLKATA-
700001.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FINANCE and
TAXATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-781006.
2:THE AGRICULTURAL INCOM TAX OFFICER
ASSAM
KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GHY.
3:COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
ASSAM
KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GHY
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A GOYAL, MR.P DAS,MR.Z ISLAM,MR.P
BARUAH,DR.ASHOK SARAF,MR.S P SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,SC, FINANCE & TAXATION(R- 1 TO 3),,
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
18.09.2025
Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri B. Sarma,
learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing
Counsel, Finance (Taxation) Department, Assam.
2. The challenge in this writ petition is against a notice dated 22.07.2015
issued by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Assam whereby the petitioner was
informed that Section 8B of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939
(hereinafter the Act) which was introduced vide Gazette Notification dated
12.02.2009 would be effective from 01.04.2009 i.e. from the assessment year
2009-10. The petitioner was therefore directed to furnish the computation of
Book Profit for the purpose of the assessment for the year 2009-10. The
primary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that a correct
interpretation of the statute would mean that the said provision of law can be
made applicable only prospectively and the assessment year should be 2010-11
and cannot be made applicable for the assessment year 2009-10.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has however drawn the
attention of this Court to the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench reported in
2012:GAU-AS:12732 [M/S Kanoi Estates Private Ltd. Vs. the State of
Assam and Ors.] whereby the contention of the petitioner in that case was
declined to be accepted by stating that the amendment provision would apply
for the assessment year 2009-10 as such provisions were brought for the first
Page No.# 3/5
time in the assessment year.
4. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the aforesaid view of the
Hon'ble Division Bench would be per incurium the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court including one reported in 1966 3 SCR 93 [Karimtharuvi Tea
Estate Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala]. He has also submitted that the view
expressed by the Hon'ble Division Bench would also be against the laws of
interpretation of taxing statute.
5. Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance (Taxation) Department
has fairly submitted that though the contention raised with regard to aspect of
decision of Hon'ble Division Bench being per incurium may require some
consideration, the correct recourse would be to prefer a review against the
aforesaid judgment.
6. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of M/S Kanoi Tea Estates
Private Ltd. (supra) has made the following observations:
"4. According to the petitioner, since the amending Act VIII of 2009
came into force on 1.4.2009, it could not be intended to tax income
of the previous year i.e. 2008-2009, nor it could be intended that
advance tax was payable in respect of such income. Similarly,
revised rate of tax vide Act XXVII could not apply to previous year
when the Act was not in force.
5. We are unable to accept this submission. Under the scheme of
the Act, the tax is payable for the agricultural income of the
previous year. The assessment is made in next year i.e. in the
assessment year at the applicable rate of tax. Admittedly, the
Page No.# 4/5
amended provisions are applicable for the assessment year in
question and the same could be applied to the previous year
irrespective of the fact that in the previous year the said provision
was not there. It is not the ca se of the petitioner that the impugned
provisions are beyond legislative competence or violate fundamental
rights. In absence thereof, only question is of interpretation.
...
8. In the face of the plain language of the above provisions, it is not
possible to hold that the amended provisions did not apply for the
assessment year 2009-2010 as such provisions were brought for the
first time in the assessment year. Same is the position with regard to
liability to pay interest."
7. This Court has also noted the findings of the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd.
(supra) which are extracted hereinbelow:
"8. Now, it is well settled that the Income Tax Act, as it stands
amended on the first day of April of any financial year must apply to
the assessments of that year. Any amendments in the Act which
come into force after the first day of April of a assessment is
actually made after the amendments come into force."
8. In the respectful opinion of this Court, the views expressed by Hon'ble
Division Bench do not seem to be in conformity with the views of the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karimtharuvi
Tea Estate Ltd. (supra).
Page No.# 5/5
9. Situated thus, this Court is of the opinion that it would be a fit case to be
referred to a larger Bench.
10. Accordingly, let this matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on
the administrative side for kind consideration and to place the same before a
larger Bench, if deemed appropriate.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
