LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus DR. VIJAY ANAND MAHARAJ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
:A. ' .. ). },.., 1\• j THE SUP.REME COURT REP-ORTS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. DR. VIJAY ANAND MAHARAJ (B. P. SINHA, C.J., K. SUBBA RA.o,. N. RAJAGOPA.LA AYYANGAR, J. R. MunHOLKAR, and T. L. VENKATA.RAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Agricultural I ncome•ta::c-Review of proceedings-Pro- ceedings, ~f include writ proceedings-,-U.P. Agricultural Income- t<tZAct, 1949 (U .P.111of1949) as amended by U.P. Act No. XIV of 1956, s. 11-Rulea of Oourl Ok. VIII, r./)-Letters Patent Allahabad High Oourt, cl. 10-0onatitution of India, Art. 226. The respondent, who owned agricultural properties in the different districts of Uttar Pradesh, was .assessed to agri· cultural income tax by the Additional Collector of Banaras. On challenge by way of a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, assessment was quashed by the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to assess. Under s. 6 of the U.P. Act No. XIV of 1956 the assessments by the Additional Collector were validated and a party to the proceedings under Agricultural Income-tax Act was given the right to move the Court or authority within the prescribed period to review the proceed- ings where in the assessments had been set aside on the ground th it the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to make the assessment. By s.11 the authority or court so moved was bound to 'review the order. The State of Uttar Pradesh applied to the High Court for review of its earlier order quashing the assessment. · The single Judge of the High Cou~t held that s. l l of the Act did .not . apply to wri~ pro- ceed1ngs under Art. 226 of the Const1tuuon. On appeal the Divbion Bench held that the order 'of the single Judge did not amount to a •judgment' under Ch. VIII r.5 c;:l. IO of the Letter Patent and the Rules. of Allahabad High Court and t~t s.11 of the A~t did not apply to. proceedings by, way of a writ before the High Court. On aifpeal by special leave by the State it was contended that the Division Bench was wrong and by an additional statement of case it was sought to be urged that the application for review should be treated as one under order 47 of the COde of Civil Procedure. 1 1961 March 26. 1962 Stat1 of (]tlar Pradt.sh v. Dr. YiJa.J Anand l1-l aharq_i 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) Held (per Sinha, C. J., Subba Rao, Ayyangar and Aiyar,JJ.), that under cl. JO of the Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court and the Rules of the Court the ex-· prcssion 'judgrnent' would even on the narrow view of the expression include the order in the present case whereby the statutory right given to the party was finally negatived and that the Division Bench was in error in holding that it was not a 'judgment'. HPld, further, that the proceeding under Art. 226 of the constitution were neither 'proceediiigs' under the Act nor proceedings on the basis of the Act. The proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution were independent and original proceeding and not a conti- nua~ion of the assessment proceedings. Venkataratnam v. Secretary of State for Indfo, (1930) I.L.R.53 Mad. 979, Ryou. of Garabandha v. The Zamindar of Parlakimedi J.L.R. 1938 Mad. 816, Ramayya v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 300, Mou/vi Hamid Hassan Nomani v. Banwarilal Ooy. (1947) II M.1..J. 32, Budge Butlge Municipality v. Manaru, (1952) 57 C.W.N.25 and Satyanarayanamurthi v. I.T. Appellate Tribunal, A.I.R.1957 Andhra 123, referred to. The Act had to be interpreted consistently with the Constitution and there was no power in the State Legis- lature to compel the High Court to act in a particular way in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitu- tion. S<ction 11 could only apply to cases where any court or authority other than the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, had decided the matter. Held, further, that construing •shall' ins.I I of the Act as 'may' would defeat the very provisions of the Act. Held, also, that ,the contention that the application under s.J] of the Act may be treated as one order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was highly belated and further .- there were many possible objections to such a course and it ... cannot be acceded to. 7 CIVIL APPEr,r,ATE,JURrsDrCTION: Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1961. Appeal by specie.I leave from the judgment a.nd decree dated November !!6, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court in Specie.I Appeal No.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.