KUNWAR TRIVIKRAM NARAIN SINGH versus STATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 25-09-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

336 
KUNWAR TRIVIKRAM NARAIN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 
September 25, 1964 
(K. SuBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH AND·S. M. Soou JJ.) 
Agricultural /ncornt-tax-Assessmtnl madt by 
Assistant Colkctor 
quashtd for want of iurisdictlon-Rttrospective amtndmtnt of law con-
ferring jurisdiction on -Assistant Collector1-Fresh assessment 
wMther 
barred by /lmitalloft-U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, (U.P. Act 3 
of 1949), as amended by U.P. Act 14 of 1956. 
The appellant was as1essed to agricullural income-tax by the Assis-
tant Collector, Banaras, U.P. Act 3 of 1949, Wider which 
assesancnt 
was made, mentioned only the 'Collector' as competent to malr.e assess-
ment. The asscs.o;ment made by the Assistant Collector was therefore 
set aside by the Collector. 
Subsequently the law was amended by U.P. 
Act 14 of 1956 to provide that the word 'Collector' wou)d include 'Aaais· 
tant Collector' and that the Collector could review his earlier orders 
quashing assessments on the ground of want of jurisdiction, if applica-
tion for review were made to him by any of the parties within 90 
days of the ccming into force of the amendment. Such application hav-
ing been filed in the appellant's case. the Collector oet aside his earlier 
orders quashing the assessment, and the Assistant Collector made a fresh 
assessment. 
The fresh assessment was challenged by the appellant by 
writ petition in the High Court and having !ailed there, the appellant 
came to the Supreme Court by special leave. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the assessment made 
by virtue of the provisions of the amending Act was barred by limita-
tion because the retrospective operuion of the provisions relating to 
jurisdiction would not extend the time for mnking the assessment 
HELD : The Collector's order on the review 
application had the 
effect of restorin~ the earlier proceedings. 
No question of limitation 
could possibly arne, for those proceedings were initiated in time and 
must be deemed to have been pendin$ tbsoughout, and the fr~ ass<ss· 
mcnt was made in those very procecd•nKS. [339 A-BJ. 
S. C. Prasluu v. V asantsen, A.I.R. 1963 S. C. 1356 and Commwioner 
of lncom•-tax, Bihar v. Lakhmir Singh, A.LR. 1963 S. C. 1394, held in-
applicable. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 799 of 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
\l;irch 1, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal 
!'o. 205 of 1958. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F· 
G 
S. P. Varma for the appellant. 
H 
h 
f 
th'e 
C. B. Agarwa/c1. 0. P. Rana and Atiqur Re man, or 
re,pondents. 
T. N. SINGH v. STATE (Subba Rao l.) 
337 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Sobba Rao J. This appeal by special leave raises the ques-
tion of the scope of the retrospective operation of the U.P. Agri-
cultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1956 (U.P. Act No. 14 
of 1956). 
The facts are simple and they are as follows: On January 10, 
1953, for the assessment year 1952-53, the Additional Collector, 
Banaras, assessed the appellant to agricultural income-tax under 
the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948' (U.P. Act 3 
of 
1949). On February 9, 1956, U.P. Agricultural Income-tax 
C 
(Amendment) Ordinance, 1956 (2 of 1956) was passed enact-
ing 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 14 of 1956. 
On an application filed by· the appellant, the Collector by his 
order dated May 9, 1956, revoked his earlier order and directed 
D 
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 assess-
ment 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 
E under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judica-
ture 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 was also dismissed. 
Hence the present appeal. 
F 
G 
H 
Mr. S. P. Varma, learned counsel for the appellant contend-· 
ed that (i) the respondent's right to assess the appellant to tax

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.