Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this application challenges the order of the Certificate Officer, Alipore dated the 17th December, 1970 and the appellate order therefrom passed by the Additional District Magistrate, 24-Parganaa dated 27th November, 1973.
(2.) In support of this application two contentions were urged. It was urged, firstly, that the assessment to tax under Bengal Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1944 was barred by limitation in view of sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1944. This contention, specifically was also not urged before the Certificate Officer or the Additional District Magistrate in appeal from the Certificate Officer. Consideration of this contention involves examination of facts. In the aforesaid view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, in this writ application for the first time the petitioner cannot and should not be allowed to agitate this contention.
(3.) The second contention urged in support of this application was that the certificate was without jurisdiction because the Certificate Officer was incompetent to proceed with the matter. Under Section 45(3) of the Act it is provided that "The Agricultural Income Tax Officer may forward to the Collector a certificate under his signature specifying the amount of arrears due from as assessee....." This condition has been fulfilled in the instant case. Sub-section (3) of Section 45 further enjoins that "the Collector on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover from such assessee the amount specified . . . ." It is contended that the right to proceed with the certificate is given to "the Collector". "The Collector" as defined under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 under sub-section (3a) of Section 3 is the chief officer in charge of the revenue administration of a district and includes an Additional District Magistrate appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. There is no evidence that the Certificate Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case was the chief officer in charge of the revenue administration.;