State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Raja Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Khan

Shah J. By s. 3 of the Act, the liability to pay agricultural

income-tax and super-tax at rates specified in the schedule therein was charged on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person. By s. 14, the Collector and the Assistant Collector were for the purposes of the Act declared to be the assessing autho-rities within their respective revenue jurisdictions. As originally enacted, by s. 2(4), the expression "Collec-tor" was to have the sa.me meaning as in the United Provinces Land ·Revenue Act, 1901. By s. 44, the Provincial Government was empowered to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, a.nd in parti-cular, amongst others," to prescribe the authority by ·whom and the place a.t which asseBBment shall be ma.de in the case of asseBBee having agricultural income in the jurisdiction of more than one assessing authority". By r. 18, cL l(a.), framed by the Government, in exercise of the powers under s. 44, it was provided, in so fa.r as it is material, that subject to sub-s. 2 of s. 14, an a.sseBBee shall ordinarily be assessed by ...... the Col-lector oi the district in which he permanently resides. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh (the former United Provinces) by Notification dated June 8, 1953, appointed one K. C. Chaudhry under sub-s. l of s. 14(A) of the United Provinces La.nd Revenue Act III of 1901 to be the Additional Collector in district Bahra.ich and authorised him to exercise all the powers and perform a.ll the duties of a. Collector " in all classes of ca.sea". Cla.iming to exercise the authority of the Collector under s. 14 of Act III of 1949, the Additional Collector by order dated February 25, 1954, asseBBCd the aBBCssee's net agricultural income at Rs. 2,81,110-10-3 a.nd ordered him to pay Rs. 1,36,390-2-0 a.s agricul-ture.I inoome-ta.x a.nd super-ta.x. ·

The validity of this order was challenged by the r96o assessee by an application under Art. 226. of the Constitution presented before the High Co'!-rt of Judi-The State of Utt"' Pradesh cature at Allahabad. The contention of the assessee & Othm that the Additional Collector of Bahraich was not an v. authority competent by law to assess the agricultural Raja Syed income-tax under Act III of 1949 was upheld by the s Moh~~'."":h High Court. The High Court issued a writ of. certio-aadat _' rari quashing the order of the Additional Collector, Shah 1. because in its opinion, where property of an assessee is situate in several districts, the Collector as the assessing authority under Act III of 1949 exercises "extra-territorial" jurisdiction, but as K. C. Chau-dury, the Additional Collector was not invested with that extra-territorial jurisdiction, the impugned pro-ceeding assessing agricultural income-tax was unautho-rised. The State of Uttar Pradesh obtained from the High Court leave to appeal to this court against the order quashing the assessment.

On behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, it is urged .I that an Additional Collector by virtue of s. 14(A) of

the United Provinces Land Revenue Act III of 1901, is competent to exercise all such powers and perform all such duties of a Collector in cases or classes of oases as the State Government may direct, and the State Government having invested Mr. Chaudhri the Additional Collector with authority to exercise all the powers and to perform all the duties of a Collector " in all cla.sses of cases", that officer could exercise the powers of the Collector under Act III of 1901, including, what the High Court called the "extra-territorial " powers. It is unnecessary to express any opinion on this argument, because the legislature of the State of Uttar Pradesh, has, since the judgment delivered by the High Court in this group of cases, amended the United Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act (U. P. Act III of 1949) by Act XIV of 1956, giving ret~ospective operation to the amending provi-sions. By the amendment, cl. 4 of s. 2 of the original Act has been substituted by two clauses, cl. 4 and cl. 4-a, and cl. 4-a enacts that the expression " Collec-tor" shall have and shall be deemed always to have

'960 the meaning as in the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 The siatt ,,1 and will include an Additional Collector apJJointed u11ar J>radesh under the said Act. Bys. IO(l)(b), all orders ma.do,

e,. Others actions or proceedings taken, directions issued or

v. jurisdictions exercised under or in accordance with Ra1a Syed the provisions of the Principal Act or of any rull' Mohanm1ad f rame d t h ereun d er prior · to t. h e amen d mt>nt o f t.hat Saadat Ali hhan

Act are to be deemed always to be as good and valid Shah J. in law as if the amending Act had been in force at all

material dates. By B. IO, sub.s. l(a), of the amending Act, it is provided that in r. 18 of the U. P. Agricul-tural Income Tax Rules, l!J49, thA expression "Collec-tor" shall be deemed to ha.vo included an Additional Collector: and it is enacted by sub-s. 2 of that section that where any question arose as to the validity or legality of any assessment made by an Additional Collector in purported exercise of the powcrn under s. 14 or of the rules framed under cl. ·(o) of suh-s. 2 of s. 44 of Act III of 1949, the same shall he determined as if the provisions of this amending Act had been in force at all material dates. By the amending Act, the legislature has enacted in language which is clear and explicit that assessment proceedings held hy an Additional Collector who is invested with the powers of a Collector under Act III of 1901 shall be deemed 1>lways to have been properly taken.

This court is seize<! of an appeal from the ordc1· of the High Court quashing the assessment on the ground that thl' Additional Collector had no extra..tNritori11l 'authority t.o assess agricultural income-tax. It is true that Act III of l!J49 was amended after the High Court delivered its judgment; but in dealing with this appeal, we arc bound to consider the amended law as it stands today (and which must be deemed to have so stood 11t all materi1tl times) and to give effect to it, having regard to tho clearly expressed intention of the legislature in thu ttmendcd provisions. Accordingly we hold that the Additional Collector was compet.ent to assess the liability of the assessee to pay agricul-tural income-tax and super-tax under the United Pro-vinces Agricultural Income-tax Act llI of 1949.

For the a~sessee, it is contended that before the High Court an application for review of judgment was I96o submitted by the State Government under s. 11 of the amending Act, and the High Court having rejected The Stale of Uttar Pradesh that application and no further proceeding having been c-, Others initiated in this court challenging the correctness of v. that decision, it is not open to us to set aside the judg-Raja Syed ment under appeal. In support of this plea, it is urged Mohamma~ t h a t an app 1, wat10n . f or review , o f JU . d gment 1s . t ] on l y Saadat _ Alt Rhan Je remedy available to a person aggrieved by a decision Shah 1. of a court or authority for rectification of an order in-consistent with the provisions of the amending Act, and if, for any reason, that application for review is not filed or is filed and rejected, it is not open to a court or authority exercising appellate powers against _ that decision to adjudicate the dispute in the light of

the amending Act.

Section 11, in so far as it is material, provides :

" Where before the commencement of this Act, any court or authority has, in any proceedings uuder the Principal Act, set aside any assessment made by an Additional Collector merely on the ground that the assessin~ authority had no jurisdiction to make the assessment, any party to the proceedings may, at any time, within ninety days from the commencement of the Act apply to the court or authority for a review of the proceedings in the light of the provisions of this Act, and the court or authority to which the application is made, shall review the proceedings accordingly ".

Relying on s. 11, the State of Uttar Pradesh, it is true did submit an application for review of the judg-ment of the High Court and the High Court rejected that application observing,

"That section (s. 11) applies however only to cases in which the assessment has been set aside in any proceedings under the Principal Act. In the cases before us, the assessment has not been set aside in any proceedings under the Principal Act but in exercise of the jurisdication vested in this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. These three petitions are therefore not maintainable ............ ".

We need express no opinion on the correctness of

88 SUPREM,E COURT REPORTS [1961]

this view, because in our judgment, the contention of The State of the a.ssessee that for setting a.side an adverse order Ulla• P•adesh inconsistent with the provi8ions of the amending Act

6-Othm of 1956, a. proceeding for review under s. II isthe only

v. remedy which is open to an aggrieved party, is with- ;·~· Sye~ out force. A court of appeal, in an appeal properly Saad•~ ·;~·Khan before it, must give effect to the law a.sit stands if

the law ha.a at some stage anterior to the hearing of Shah ]. the appeal been a.mended retrospectivelJ;. with the

object of conferring upon the authority or tribunal of first instance from the order whereof the appeal is filed jurisdiction which it originally la.eked : and a. provision for review like the one contained in s. 11 of the a.mending Act does not affect the power of the appellate court to deal with the appeal iu the light of the a.mended law.

In the view expreBSed by us, this appeal must be allowed. As the appellant succeeds relying on a. statute which was enacted after the date of the judg-ment of the High Court, we direct that there shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed. 1960 DALIP SlNGH July a8. · "· I

THE STATE OF PUNJAB. I

(P. B. GAJENDBAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO,

M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1957.

Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 28, 1955, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Lucknow, in Civil Miijc. Application No. 59 of 1954.

C. B. Agarwala, C. P. Lal and G. N. Diksliit, for the appellants.

S. P. Sinha and B. R. L. Iyengar, for the respondent.

1960. July 28. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

84 S"CPREME COUHT REPORTS [1961]

196o SHAH J.-Raja Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Kha.n,

who will hereinafter be referred to as " the assessee '', 1'11t State of is the owner o f T a 1 uqa .,anpura "' m ' d istr1ct ' B ahra.ich ....

o,. Othm and Taluqa Mohammadi in district Kheri, in the State

v. of Uttar Pradesh. The legislature of the United Pro-Raja Syed vinces enacted the United Provinces Agricultural Mohammad Income-tax Act, Act III of 1949, authorising imposi-Saadat Ali Kha• tion of a tax on agricultural income within the State.