KUNWAR TRIVIKRAM NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1964-9-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on September 25,1964

KUNWAR TRIVIKRAM NARAIN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) 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).
(2.) The facts are simple and they are as follows: On January 10, 1953, for the assessment year 1952-53, the Additional Collector, Banaras, assesssed 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, U. P. Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1956 (Ordinance 2 of 1956) was passed enacting that the word "Collector" shall always be deemed to include Additional Collector. That Ordinance was later replaced by the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act XIV of 1956. On an application filed by the appellant, the Collector by his order dated May 9, 1956, revoked his earlier order and directed the Additional Collector to proceed to assess the appellant in accordance with law. Thereupon, the Additional Collector resumed proceedings and on June 7, 1956 passed a fresh assessment order imposing a tax of Rs. 42,761 on the appellant, and on July 4, 1956, he issued a notice to the appellant for payment of the tax. On August 7, 1956, the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for quashing the order of assessment and the notice issued pursuant thereto. The petition was heard, in the first instance, by Tandon, J., who dismissed the same with costs. The appeal preferred by the appellant against that order to a Division Bench of the said Court was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
(3.) Mr. S. P. Varma, learned counsel for the appellant contended, (i) that the respondent's right to assess the appellant to tax was barred by limitation and, therefore, the Act could not have the effect of reviving the said right; and (ii) the amount of malikhana could not be in law the subject-matter of assessment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.