STATE OF KERALA versus ALEX GEORGE AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 18-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF KERALA 
v. 
ALEX GEORGE AND ANR. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 18, 2004 
[S.N. V ARIA VA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND 
S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Kera/a Plantations Tax Act, 1960; Ss. 3, 5 and 9A with amendment 
made in Schedule I to the Act by Kera/a Finance Act 18 of 1987 revising 
the rates of plantations tax : 
A 
B 
c 
Levy of additional plantation tax in the middle of financial year due 
to revision in the rate of tax in terms of amendment-Validity of-Held 
: Chargeabi/ity of tax is independent of the passing of the Finance Act-
State Finance Act aims to prescribe/revise the rates of tax and not intended 
to replace the entire procedural and substantive tax law-Revision in_ the D 
tax on amendment affects the tariff categories as well as the tariff structure-
Thus, falls within the ambit of Section 3(2) of the Act-Hence, tax assessed 
due to revision in the tax rates, could be charged only from the financial 
year following such revision-State competent to revise the tax but it could 
not be given effect to in the middle of the financial year-Kera/a Plantations E 
(Additional Tax) Rules, 1960; Rule 16. 
Words and Phrases : 
'Valuation date' and 'Revision '-Meaning of in the context of Kera/a 
Plantations Tax Act, 1960. 
F 
The questions which arose in this batch of appeals were as to the 
true scope and operation of Section 1(2) of the Kerala Finance Act 18 
of 1987 amending Schedule-I to the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960 
in revising the rates of plantation tax w.e.f. 1.7.1987, and as to whether G 
amendment in the Schedule-I to the Act results in two assessments in 
the same financial year, one w.e.f. 1.4.1987 and another one with revised 
rate of tax w.e.f. 1.7.1987. 
It was contended by the appellant-State that the effect of substituting 
the revised Schedule w.e.f. 1.7.1987 was to revise the rate of plantation H 
163 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004]SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A tax during the financial year 1987-88 in terms of the State Finance Act 
18of1987; that the object of the State Finance Act would stand defeated 
if the revised rates were held to be made applicable on and from the next 
financial year 1988-89; and that the revision in the rate of plantation 
tax under the amended schedule would not result in two assessments 
B during the assessment year 1987-88. 
c 
D 
It was submitted by the assessees that the exigibility to plantation 
tax in terms of Section 3(2) of the Kerala Plantation. Tax Act was as on 
the first day of each financial year; that the revised tax would be payable 
only from the financial year immediately following the revision, thus the 
revised rates could be levied from the financial year 1988-89; and that 
since the Scheme of the Act rules out two assessments during the same 
financial year, demand of the assessing authority in levying the tax at 
existing rate for the period 1.4. 1987 to 30.6.1987 and at the revised rate 
for the period 1.7.1987 to 31.3.1988 was not feasible. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. Revision simpliciter in the ra.te of tax is different from 
revision which alters the tariff structure and the tariff categories. In the 
instant case, the revision brought upon by substitution of revised not 
E only effects revisions in the rates, it also revises the tariff categories as 
well as the tariff structure and consequently, such a revision would fall 
within the ambit of Section 3(2) of the Kerala Plantations Tax Act. In 
the case of revision in the rates simpliciter, the assessable extent of the 
holding remains constant throughout the year, whereas in the case of 
F 
revision in the tax structure, the assessable extent of the holding undergoes 
a change. In this case, the revised schedule increased the assessable 
extent of the holding. The revised schedule altered the tariff categories. 
Therefore, the revision in question in this case squarely came within the 
ambit of Section 3(2) of the Act and such a revision could be given effect 
G 
to only in the next immediate financial year 1988-89. However, 
chargeability is independent of the passing of the Finance Act. Therefore, 
one has to read the Finance Act in consonance with the provisions of 
the charging Section. The function of the State Finance Act primarily 
was to prescribe the rate of tax and the manner of calculation of tax; 
and it is not intended to incorporate the entire procedural and substantive 
H law relating to tax. In the circumstances, it could be said that the object 
,. 
•· 
STATE v. ALEX GEORGE

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.