A.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal has been preferred against an order of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi by which he rejected a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. Four other petitions had been filed by the appellant with similar prayers. All the five petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, as the questions of law which they sought to raise were identical.
(2.) THE appellant is a firm which carries on business of supplying seeds and plants at Saharanpur. THE appellant was assessed to agricultural income-tax under the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1949. It was not found assessable for the year 1947-48 but was assessed for the years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 on 25-10-1949, 26-9-1950, 25-9-1951, 12-9-1952 and 6-4-1954 respectively. THE appellant acquiesced to the assessments in respect of the other years but filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax in respect of the assessment for the year 1951-52. In that appeal the Commissioner enhanced the assessable income of the appellant. THE appellant then filed an application in revision against the appellate decision of the Commissioner before the Revision Board. While this revision application was pending, in June 1955, the State filed six applications in revision before the Revision Board in respect of the assessments of the six years, viz., 1947-48, 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. Notices in respect of these revision applications by the State were served on the appellant. It had no objection to the maintainability of the revision petition filed in respect of the assessment for the year 1951-52 as its own revision application was also pending before the Board of Revision in respect of that year. It, however, filed five petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a suitable order or direction, including a writ in the nature of prohibition calling for the record of the revision applications filed by the State and quashing the proceedings. It also wanted the State to be directed to forbear from proceeding with the revision applications. It was argued that under Section 25 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act a limitation of one year was fixed for re-opening assessments which had been finalised and for assessing or re-assessing escaped incomes. Section 22 of the Act which conferred powers of revision on Revision Board was, it was contended, subject to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. It was, therefore, urged that the Revision Board had no jurisdiction in the exercise of its revisional powers at the instance of the State to consider the question of re-opening the already completed assessments for the years 1947-48, 194S-49, 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1952-53 thus to contravene the express provisions of Section 25 of the Act. A preliminary objection against the petitions was raised on behalf of the State and it was urged that the revision applications having already been filed before the Revision Board it was within the jurisdiction of that authority to hear and decide them. The objection raised in the petitions it was contended could be urged before the Revision Board itself and if was found tenable, it would be given "effect to by that Board. No writ of prohibition, it was pointed out, could be issued directing the Board not to proceed with the hearing of the revision applications.
(3.) THE preliminary objection found favour with the learned Judge and he rejected the petitions. In his order, however, he remarked that there was a decision of the Patna High Court reported in Province of Bihar v. Khetro Mohan Kumar, AIR 1949 Pat 418 (A), which appeared to support the appellant's contention but observed that it was open to the petitioner to rely on that authority before the Revision Board. Appeals were filed against the dismissal of all the five petitions and during the pendency of the appeals the Revision Board took up the applications in revision filed by the State for disposal along with the application for revision which the appellant had himself filed in respect of the assessment year 1951-52. The decision of the Patna High Court was brought to the notice of the Revision Board but was not followed by it. The Board took the view that the matter had come to it in the ordinary course and the question it was considering was the correctness or otherwise of the assessments made under Section 16 of the Act. The Board was also of opinion that the proceedings before it could not be governed by the restrictions provided in Section 25. Holding that the assessment orders had not been properly made in respect of the years 1355 to 1358-F and 1360 Fasli, the assessments of those years were set aside and the cases were sent back to the assessing authority for fresh assessments in respect of those years. The revision filed by the State in respect of the year 1359 Fasli was dismissed. The revision of the appellant in respect of the year 1951-52 was also dismissed. These orders were passed by the Board on 31st October, 1956. ;