LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus RAJA SYED MOHAMMAD SAADAT ALI KHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Con1n11ssio11rr of
Income-tax
v.
Thr1k.11r Vas
1Jhr1rxatia
S. K. Vas ].
July •8.
82
SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS
[1961]
Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set asido the
judgment and order of the High Court.
The answer
to the question is in favour of the appellant, namely,
that the sum of Rs. 32,500/- received by the asscssee
was his professional income taxable in his hands. The
appell11.nt will be entitled to his costs throughout.
Appeal allowed.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND OTHERS
!!.
}{AJA SYED MOHAMMAD SAADAT
ALI KHAN.
(S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Agricultural Income-lax-Additional Collecior-PO'.vcr of Assess-
ment-Amendi11g Act giving retrospective ejfecl to amendecl provi-
sions-Prot-ision for re·vicw in the amendment Act-If offecls the
powers of the appellate court-The United Provinces Agricultural
Income-tax Act, 1949 (U. P. Ill of 1949)-United Provinces Land
Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. III of 1901).
The United Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1949,
authorised imposition of a tax on agricultural income within the
State, and the agricultural income-tax and 3uper-tax were
charged on the total agricultural income of the previous year
of the assessee.
For the purposes. of the Act the Collector and
the Assistant Collector were declared to be the assessing autho-
rities within their respective revenue jurisdiction and the ex-
pression" Collector" was to have the same meaning as in the
United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901.
Under the rules
framed by the government under s. 44 of the Act an assessec
having agricultural income in the jurisdiction of more than one
assessing authority was to be assessed by the Collector of the
district in which he permanently resided. The State Govern-
ment of 1,;ttar Pradesh appointed :Mr. K. C. Chaudhry under sub-
s. l of s. r4(A) of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901,
to be the Additional Collector in District Bahraich and authorised
him to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of a
"Collector " " in all classes of cases", Claiming to exercise the
....
'
,_;
_.
I '
' _.(
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
83
powers of a Collector under s. 14 of the United Provinces Agri-
I960
cultural Income-tax Act of 1949 he assessed the net agricultural
income of the assessec \vho O¥:ned landed property in two dis-
The State of
tricts, namely, Bahraich and Kheri in the State of Uttar Pra-
Utt"' Pmdesh
desh, at 12,81,rro-ro-o and ordered him to pay Rs. l,36,390-2-0
& Othm
as agricultural income-tax and super-tax.
The validity of this
v.
order was challenged by the assessee in the High Court by an
Raja Syed
application under Art. 226 of the Constitution and the High
.'llfoha11unad
Court quashed the order of the Additional Collector holding that Saadat Ali Khan
he had no "extra-territorial" jurisdiction which was exercised
by the Collector as the assessing authority in cases where the
pi.·operty of the assessee was situate in several districts and as
such the proceeding taken by him for assessing· agricultural
income-tax was unauthorised. After the judgment of the High
Court was delivered the State Legislature amended the United
Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1949, by Act XIV of
1956, giving retrospective operation to the amending provisions .
. The Amendment Act enacted that the assessment proceedings
held by an Additional Collector who was invested with the
powers of a Collector under Act III of 1901 should be deemed
always to have been properly taken. The State Government
submitted before the High Court an application under s. II of
the amending Act for review of its judgment but it was dismiss-
ed. On appeal by the State Government by special leave,
Held, that the Additional Collector was competent to assess
the liability of the assessee to pay agricultural income-tax and
super-tax under the United Provinces Agricultural :Income-tax
Act, 1949·
A Court of appeal must give effect to the law as it stood
at the time of hearing of the appeal if at any stage anterior to
the hearing th.e Jaw had been amended with retrospective effect
conferring on an authority or tribunal from the order whereof
the appeal is filed, jurisdiction which it originally Jacked.
The power of the appellate court to deal with the appeal in
accordance of the amended Jaw is not affected by a 'provision for
review as contained in s. II of the Amending Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil AExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.