Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a special A. by the State against an order of Mr. Justice Mehrotra dismissing the Appellants application for review.
(2.) The Respondent was assessed to Agricultural Income-tax by the Additional Collector of Banaras in respect of the year 1359F. He questioned the validity of the assessment and filed a petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the assessment order be quashed. The main ground urged in support of the petition was that the Additional Collector of Banaras who had assessed the Respondent had NO power to assess him as his income exceeded a lac of rupees and he owned properties in different States. The writ petition was allowed by this Court and the assessment order was quashed. An Ordinance No. 11 of 19 6 was then promulgated. By that Ordinance the definition of the term 'Collector' in section 2(4) of the UP Agricultural Income Tax, 1948 was altered so as to include an Additional Collector and the amendment was given retrospective effect The effect was that all assessments made by Additional Collectors in respect of persons like the Respondent were to be considered valid in law. This Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the UP Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1956 (UP Act No. XIV of 1956) and section 11 of the Act provided: "Where before the commencement of this Act any Court or authority has, in any proceedings under the Principal Act, set aside any assessment made by an Additional Collector or Additional Assistant Collector in charge of a sub division merely on the ground that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to make an assessment, any party to the proceedings may, at any time within ninety days from the date of commencement of this 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 and make such order, if any, varying or revising the order previously made, as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Principal Act as amended by Sections 2 and 8 of this Act....
(3.) Taking advantage of this provision the State filed the application, the dismissal of which has given rise to this appeal. By that application the State wanted this Court to review the order made u/Art. 226 of the Constitution by which the assessment of the Respondent has been quashed. The application was rejected on the ground that section 11 of the Amendment was intended to provide for the review of orders which had been passed in any proceedings under the principal Act, namely the UP Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948 and could not apply to orders passed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution.;