9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (9) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : K. SUBBA RAO., J. C. SHAH., S. M. SIKRI JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J.---This appeal by special leave raises the question of the scope of the retrospective operation of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1956 (U.P. Act No. XIV of 1956). The facts are simple and they are as follows : On January 10, 1953, for the assessment year 1952-53, the Additional Collector, Banaras, assessed the appellant to agricultural income-tax under the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 (U. P. Act III of 1949). On February 9, 1956, the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1956 (Ordinance 2 of 1956), was passed, enacting that the word "Collector" shall always be deemed to inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t turns upon the relevant provisions of Act III of 1949 and Act XIV of 1956. Under Act III of 1949, the definition of "Collector" did not include "Additional Collector". Act XIV of 1956 received the assent of the Governor on April 17, 1956, and was published in the U. P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated May 19, 1956. Section 2 of Act XIV of 1956 reads : " In section 2 of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter " called the principal Act), for clause (4), the following shall be and be deemed always to have been substituted ....... (4-a) 'Collector' shall have the meaning as in the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and will include an Additional Collector appointed under the said Act.", Section 11 of the Act reads : "Where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or quashed those proceedings by his order dated November 26, 1955. After the Amending Act was passed, within 90 days therefrom the appropriate income-tax authority had filed an application before the Collector to review his order. The Collector reviewed the order and set aside the same. The result was that the proceedings before the Additional Collector was restored. As by the amendment the Additional Collector must be deemed to have been the Collector from the inception of the principal Act itself, the said proceedings must be deemed to have been initiated before the proper authority under the principal Act. In this view no question of limitation could possibly arise, for the proceedings were initiated in time and must be deemed to have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
