V.P.TYAGI, J. - (1.) THIS writ application has been filed by Sardar Amar Singh and 12 others under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the assessment orders passed against the petitioners under the Rajasthan Agricultural Income -tax Act for the years 1964 -55.1955 -56, 1956 -57, 1957 -58, 1958 -59 and 1959 -60 marked Exs. 2 to 7 be quashed and by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan dated 1.1.1966 dismissing the revision applications be set aside and he may be directed to dispose of the 6 revision applications filed by the petitioners before the said officer in accordance with the law.
(2.) THE agricultural Income -tax officer assessed the petitioners under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) for the assessment years 1954 55 to 1959 -60. The petitioners did not prefer any appeal against the said assessment orders before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 18 of the Act. The assessment orders and the demand notices were served on the petitioners on 8th December, 1961. The petitioners preferred to challenge the correctness of the said assessment orders by filing 6 different revision petitions before the Commissioner. These revision petitions came up for disposal before the Additional Commissioner, who by his order, dated 1 -1 -1966 dismissed all these revision petitions declaring them to be barred by time It is against this order of the Additional Commissioner Commercial Taxation Department, Rajasthan, that this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners. Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has raised two preliminary questions in this writ petition: (1) that the petitioners could not prefer a revision -petition before the Commissioner Commercial Taxation Department, Rajasthan, under Section 52(2) because they did not prefer to file an appeal against the assessment orders before the Assistant Commissioner, and (2) that the writ petition suffers from misjoinder of causes of action. It is contended that for each year a separate writ petition should have been filed by the petitioners for each assessment year because the Agricultural Income tax Officer passed separate orders assessing the petitioners for each assessment year and the Petitioners also preferred to file 6 revision petitions against each assessment order before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxation Department, Rajasthan According to the learned Deputy Government Advocate these revision petitions, though were disposed of by one common order passed by the Commissioner, yet separate cause of action in respect of each assessment year accrued to the petitioners on the dismissal of each revision petition before the Commissioner.
(3.) IN order to decide the first preliminary objection raised by the learned Deputy Government, it will be convenient to reproduce the provisions of the law under which the revision applications were preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner. Section 52(2), under which these revision applications were filed, reads as follows.: The Commissioner may, on application by an assessee for revision of an order under this Act passed by any agricultural Income -tax Officer made within one year from the date of the order, or within such further period as the Commissioner may think fit to allow, on being satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period, call for the record of the proceeding in which such order was passed, and on receipt of the record may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit: Provided that the Commissioner shall not reverse any order under this sub section if - - (a) Where an appeal against the order lies to the Assistant Commissioner or to the Appellate Tribunal but has not been made, the time within which such appeal may be made has not expired, or, in the case of an appeal to the appellate Tribunal, the assessee has not waived his right of appeal. Clauses (b) and (c) are irrelevant for the decision of the present preliminary objections and, therefore, they are not being reproduced here. ;