# KUNWAR TRIVIKRAM NARAIN SINGH v. STATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1965] 1 S.C.R. 336
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964-09-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 799 of 1963
- **Bench:** K. SuBBA RAo, J. C. Shah, ·S. M. Soou
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kunwar-trivikram-narain-singh-v-state-of-uitar-pradesh-and-others-3315
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Agricultural /ncornt-tax-Assessmtnl madt by
Assistant Colkctor
quashtd for want of iurisdictlon-Rttrospective amtndmtnt of law conferring 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 Assistant Collector, Banaras, U.P. Act 3 of 1949, Wider which
assesancnt
was made, mentioned only the 'Collector' as competent to malr.e assessment. 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 application for review were made to him by any of the parties within 90
days of the ccming into force of the amendment. Such application having 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 limitation 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 inapplicable.
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

## Text

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 conferring 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 Assistant Collector, Banaras, U.P. Act 3 of 1949, Wider which
assesancnt
was made, mentioned only the 'Collector' as competent to malr.e assessment. 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 application for review were made to him by any of the parties within 90
days of the ccming into force of the amendment. Such application having 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 limitation 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 inapplicable.
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 question of the scope of the retrospective operation of the U.P. Agricultural 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 enacting 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 assessment 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 Judicature 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
was barred by limitation and, therefore, the Act coUld not have
the effect of reviving the said right; and (ii) the amount of
malikhana could not be in law the subject-matter of assessment.
The second point was not raised in the High Court. We
did not permit the learned counsel to raise the point for the first
time before us.
The first point turns upon the relevant provisions of Act 3
of 1949 and Act 14 of 1956. Under Act 3 o( 1949 the definition of "Collector" did not include "Additional Collector". Act
14 of 1956 received the assent of the Governor on April 17,
1956, and was published in the U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary)
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1965) I S.C.R.
dated May 19, 1956.
Section 2 of Act 14 of 1956 reads:
A
"In section 2 of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax
Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Principal Act), for
clause ( 4), the following shall be and be deemed always
to have been substituted-
"( 4-a) 'Collector' shall have the meaning as in the
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and will include an
Additional Collector appointed under the said Act."
Section 11 of the Act reads :
"Where before the commencement of this Act any
Court or authority has, in any proceedings under the
Principal Act, set aside any assessment made by an Additional Collector or Additional Assistant Collector incharge of a sub-division merely on the ground that the
assessing authority had no jurisdiction to make the
assessment, any party to the proceedings may, at any
time within ninety da,ys from the date of commencement of this Act apply to the Court or authority for a
review of the proceedings in the light of the provisions
of this Act, and the Court or authority to which the
application is made . shall
review
the proceedings
accordingly and make such order. if any, varying or
revising the order previously made, as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Principal
Act as amended by sections 2 and 8 of this Act"
B
c
D
E
A combined reading of the said provisions establishes that if an
application for review was filed within the time prescribed, the
F
previous proceedings would be restored and the parties would
be relegated to the position which they had occupied before
the proceedings were quashed on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
In this case proceedings were initiated by the Additional
Collector on January 10, 1953, for the purpose of assessing the
G
appellant for the assessment year 1952-53.
There was
no
flaw in the said proceedings except that the Additional Collector
was not authorized by Act 3 of 1949, as it then stood, to make
the said assessment.
The Collector quashed those proceedings
by his order dated November 26, 1955. After the amending
Act was passed, within 90 days therefrom the appropriate
H
income-tax authority had filed an application before the Collector to review bis order. The Collector reviewed the order and
T. !'f. SINGH v. STATE (Subba Rao J.)
339'
A set aside the same~ The result was that the proceedings befort~
the Additional Collector were restored.
As by the amendment
the Additional Collector must b~ deemed to have been the Collector from the inception of the Principal Act itself, the said
proceedings must be deemed to have been initiated before the
proper authority under the Principal Act. In this view . no ·
B question of limitation could possibly arise, for the proceedings
were initiated in ·time and must be deemed to have been pending throughout and the fresh assessment was made iri the said
proceedings.
The decisions cited by the learned counsel .are really beside
C the mark.
He relied upon the judgments of this Court in S. C.
Prashar v. Vasantsen( 1 ), and Commissioner
of Income-tax
Bihar v. Lakhmir Singh( 2 ). One of the questions raised in
those cases was whether an amending Act revived a remedy
which had become barred before the amendment was introduced.
That aspect of the question has no relevance to the present
D enquiry. Here we are dealing with an Act whose constitutionality is not questioned.
It has expressly conferred power on the
appropriate authority to review its previous order if an application . was filed within the time prescdbed. When once that power
of review ;was exercised, the Pfoceedings were reopened.
J)n
E this view, no question of the application ·Of an amending Act to
a barred claim would· arise.
In the result we hold that the order of the High Court is
correct and dismiss the appeal with costs.
(ll [1964] l S.C.R. 29.
(2) [1964] I S.C.R. 148.
,.
Appeal dismissed.