# STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. RAJA Y ADVENDRA DUTT DUBE

- **Citation:** [1966] 3 S.C.R. 161
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-12-17
- **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, J. C. Shah, S. M. Sikri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-uttar-pradesh-v-raja-y-advendra-dutt-dube-3686
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act,
1948, ss. 14(1) & (2),
15(3),
25-Jurisdiction to assess when gross income exceeds Rs. 1 lakh-Revjsion Board whether competent to direct Collector to make an assessment
after period under s. 25 has expired-Whether Collector can make assess.
ment on basis of return filed before Sub-Divisional Officer on notice issu·
ed by latter under s. 15 (3 )-whether assessment can be made on such
return on the basis of notice issued under s. 14(1).
The respondent-assessee had a gross agricultural income of more than
Rs. I lakh in 1355 Fash (July 1, 1947 to June 30, 1948).
In response
to a notice issued by the Assistant C<>llector under s. 15(3) <>f the U.P.
Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, the assessee filled a return
of his
income and the said officer made an assessment though under s. 14(2)
of the Act jurisdiction to assess in cases when the gross income exceeded·
Rs. 1 lakh Jay within the Collector. The' Collector thereafter made a re·
assessment under s. 25 read with s. 16( 4) within the period of limitation
prescribed under the former section i.e. "within one year of the end of
the year in which the income had e.icaped asse33ment".
In
appeal
by
the respondent the Agricultural Income-tax Commissioner set aside the
ordeai of the Collector and also of the Assistant Collector and directed
the Collector to make a fresh assessment after giving notice to the respondent. The Board of Revision held that the Commissioner had r:ghtly decided that the order.s in question were invalid but that the Commissioner was not empowered to set aside the order of the Assistant Collector
which was not challenged before him. However the Board suo motu set
aside the order of the Assistant Collector and directed that fresh asse-;s~
ment be made "accord:ng to law". The High Court in reference under
s. 24( 4) held that having regard to the limitation provided in s. 25
tho
Board could not in 1952 direct the Collector to make a fresh assessment
for the period in question. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to this
Court.
Tt was contended on behalf of the State
that : (I) The Assistant
Collector could make assessment even in case5 \\'hen the gross income
exceeded Rs. 1 lakh.
(2) The notice under s. 15(3) issued by the Assistant Collector not having been set aside. by the higher
authorities,
the
Collector cculd, as directed by the Board,
make an assessment without
transgressing
any
restrictions in s. 15(3)
or s. 25.
(3)
without a
fresh notice un.der s. 15 (3) the. C<>llector had the p<>wer by virtue of the
notice under s. 15(1), to assess the income of the respondent on the
return made pursuant to the notice issued by the Assistant Collector. (4)
Since notice under 9. 25 for re-assessment of !he escaped income had
been issued by the Collector within the1 period prescribed by s. 25(3) and
the notice was otherwise valid, assessment proceedings directed by the
Board could be founded by the Collector on that notice.
HELD: (i) Reading sub-s. (1) & (2) together there can be no doubt
that the Collector is the assessing authority within his revenue jurisdiction
with unlimited jurisdiction and the Assistant Collector in charge of a
sub-division is the asses3ing authority within his revenue jurisdiction with
power only in cases in which the gross agricultural income of the asscssee
16 2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1966) 3 S.C.R.
does not exceed Rs. 1 lakh.
The Assi<tant Collector is not entitled to
A
make assessment in such a case relying on the geocraJtty of the provisions
of s. 14(1 ). [167 F-<:;J
(ii) When the Assistant Collector arrived at tho conclusion that tho
gross income of the respondent exceeded Rs. 1 lakh the proceedings initiated by him including the issue of the notice must, unless that conclusion is set aside by
a superior authority, be treated
as unauthorised,
for the power to issue a notice under s. 15 ( 3) is only conferred upon
B
the a:,sessing authority and the ac;sessing authority within the meaning of
s. 2(6) is a person aut

## Text

A
B
•
c
•
D
E
..
F
G
t
I
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
RAJA Y ADVENDRA DUTT DUBE
December 17, 1965
[K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.]
U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act,
1948, ss. 14(1) & (2),
15(3),
25-Jurisdiction to assess when gross income exceeds Rs. 1 lakh-Revjsion Board whether competent to direct Collector to make an assessment
after period under s. 25 has expired-Whether Collector can make assess.
ment on basis of return filed before Sub-Divisional Officer on notice issu·
ed by latter under s. 15 (3 )-whether assessment can be made on such
return on the basis of notice issued under s. 14(1).
The respondent-assessee had a gross agricultural income of more than
Rs. I lakh in 1355 Fash (July 1, 1947 to June 30, 1948).
In response
to a notice issued by the Assistant C<>llector under s. 15(3) <>f the U.P.
Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, the assessee filled a return
of his
income and the said officer made an assessment though under s. 14(2)
of the Act jurisdiction to assess in cases when the gross income exceeded·
Rs. 1 lakh Jay within the Collector. The' Collector thereafter made a re·
assessment under s. 25 read with s. 16( 4) within the period of limitation
prescribed under the former section i.e. "within one year of the end of
the year in which the income had e.icaped asse33ment".
In
appeal
by
the respondent the Agricultural Income-tax Commissioner set aside the
ordeai of the Collector and also of the Assistant Collector and directed
the Collector to make a fresh assessment after giving notice to the respondent. The Board of Revision held that the Commissioner had r:ghtly decided that the order.s in question were invalid but that the Commissioner was not empowered to set aside the order of the Assistant Collector
which was not challenged before him. However the Board suo motu set
aside the order of the Assistant Collector and directed that fresh asse-;s~
ment be made "accord:ng to law". The High Court in reference under
s. 24( 4) held that having regard to the limitation provided in s. 25
tho
Board could not in 1952 direct the Collector to make a fresh assessment
for the period in question. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to this
Court.
Tt was contended on behalf of the State
that : (I) The Assistant
Collector could make assessment even in case5 \\'hen the gross income
exceeded Rs. 1 lakh.
(2) The notice under s. 15(3) issued by the Assistant Collector not having been set aside. by the higher
authorities,
the
Collector cculd, as directed by the Board,
make an assessment without
transgressing
any
restrictions in s. 15(3)
or s. 25.
(3)
without a
fresh notice un.der s. 15 (3) the. C<>llector had the p<>wer by virtue of the
notice under s. 15(1), to assess the income of the respondent on the
return made pursuant to the notice issued by the Assistant Collector. (4)
Since notice under 9. 25 for re-assessment of !he escaped income had
been issued by the Collector within the1 period prescribed by s. 25(3) and
the notice was otherwise valid, assessment proceedings directed by the
Board could be founded by the Collector on that notice.
HELD: (i) Reading sub-s. (1) & (2) together there can be no doubt
that the Collector is the assessing authority within his revenue jurisdiction
with unlimited jurisdiction and the Assistant Collector in charge of a
sub-division is the asses3ing authority within his revenue jurisdiction with
power only in cases in which the gross agricultural income of the asscssee
16 2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1966) 3 S.C.R.
does not exceed Rs. 1 lakh.
The Assi<tant Collector is not entitled to
A
make assessment in such a case relying on the geocraJtty of the provisions
of s. 14(1 ). [167 F-<:;J
(ii) When the Assistant Collector arrived at tho conclusion that tho
gross income of the respondent exceeded Rs. 1 lakh the proceedings initiated by him including the issue of the notice must, unless that conclusion is set aside by
a superior authority, be treated
as unauthorised,
for the power to issue a notice under s. 15 ( 3) is only conferred upon
B
the a:,sessing authority and the ac;sessing authority within the meaning of
s. 2(6) is a person authorised ro asse:;s agricultural income-tax.
There
is no provision in the Act or the Rules for transfer of proceedings from
the Assistant Collector to the Collector when the Assistant Collector
in
dealing with a return finds that he
h1s no
jurisdiction. The Collector
therefore could not in the present case make re-assessment on the basis
of the return tiled under s. 15(3).
In fact, having regard to the terms
of the order passed by the Board it was
clear that the
notice
under
C
" 15 ( 3) issued by the Assistant Collector
had been
quashed
by
the
Board. [ 168 B-FI
(iii) If the proceedings for assessment were commenced on a return
·'
•
•
made pursuant to an invalid notice, and the proceedings for assessment
"
were set aside on the ground of \Vant of jurisdiction of the
authority
making the asses;mcnt the entire p~oceeding must be deemed to be vacated and relying upon the return made lo the authority who had assessed
D
the income another authority cannot proceed to a~sess the income of the
a,ses'icC.
tvlerc issue of ::t. notice under s. 15( I) could not come to the
aid of the Collector in commencing· fre.~h assessment proceedings many
yc&rs after the date on which that notice was i~sued on a return which
was nm made. to him. [168 H-169 BJ
(iv) The notice under s. 25 is9ued hy the Collector must also be
deemed to have heen quashed by the Board.
The Collector had therefore, under t~ dircclion given by 1hc Board, to issue a fresh no'.ice berorc
E
a proceeding for a~scssmcnt could he started and a fresh as~e~c;mcnt could
not be based on the ·'3rlier notice. [ 169 E]
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 123 of
1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated r
November 28, 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in A.I.T. Reference No. 16 of 1960.
S. T. Desai and 0. P. Rana, for the appellant.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, M. V. Goswami and B. C. Misra, for
the respondent.
The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by
Shah, J.
lly order, dated ~fay 14, I 949 the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Jaunpur, assessed Raja Yadvendra Dutt Dube-·herdnafter
called 'the rcspondent'-under s. 16(3) of the U. P. Agricultural
Income-tax Act, 1948 to pay agricultural income-tax for the
account reriod 1355 Fas Ii (July I, 1947 to June 30, I 9·18) on a
net income of Rs. 72,769/15/2. Being of the view that a part
G
H
-
•
+
\
•
•
t
j
-'·
•
• '
U. P. STATE V. Y. D. DUBE (Shah, J.)
163
A
of the income of the respondent had escaped assessment, the
Collector of Jaunpur by order, dated June 9, 1950, recomputed
tax under s. 25 read with s. 16( 4) of the Act for the said account
period on a total net income of Rs. 80,859/13/6. In appeal by
the respondent the Agricultural Income-tax Commissioner by order
dated March 5, 1952, set aside the orders of the Collector and
B also of the Sub-Divisional Officer and directed that the assessment
be reopened by the Collector and fresh assessment of the income
for 1355 Fasli be made after giving notice to the respondent. In
the view of the Commissioner, assessment made by the SubDivisional Officer was without jurisdiction, and the order of rec
D
E
F
G
H
assessment by the Collector "being in review and substitution of
the order of assessment", want of jurisdiction in the order of assessment attached to the order of re-assessment as well.
The respondent then moved the Board of Revision against the order of the
Commissioner. The Board agreed with the Commissioner, that the
assessment order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer was "illegal
and invalid", but in the view of the Board the Commissioner
exceeded his authority in setting aside the order of the SubDivisional Officer, which was not challenged in appeal before him.
However, the Board observed, the illegality and invalidity of the
order of assessment having come to their notice, they would take
up the matter suo motu in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction
and declare the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as illegal
and set it aside.
Accordingly, in setting aside the order of the
Commissioner, they also set aside the order of assessment made by
the Sub-Divisional Officer, and directed that "Fresh assessment will
be made aiccording to law".
The Board then referred under
s. 24( 4) of the Act the following question of law to the High
Court of Allahabad for opinion :
"Whether on the facts and having regard to the provisions of section 25 of the Act, the Board could on the
15th October, 1952, direct a fresh assessment to be
made?"
The High Court, recorded an answer in the negative.
The State
of Uttar Pradesh has appealed to this Court.
The relevant provisions of the Act are briefly these : "Assessing authority" under the Act means a person authorised by the
State Government to assess agricultural income-tax: s. 2(6). By
s. 3 charge of agricultural income-tax and super-tax at the rate
or rates specified in the Schedule on the total agricultural income
of the previous year of every person is imposed. Section 14 sets
164
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
(1966 I 3 S.C.R.
up Assessing authorities and prescribes their powers.
It proA
vides :
"(I) For the purposes of this Act, every Collector,
and Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division shall
be assessing authority and shall exercise and perform
within his revenue jurisdiction such powers and duties
as may be prescribed, provided that the State Government may appoint any officer as an assessing authority
for such area as may be prescribed.
(2) In particular and without prejudice
to
the
generality of the provisions of sub-section (I), the
following authorities shall be the assessing authorities
in the cases mentioned against each namely :
(a) Assistant Collector Inchargc
of sub-division.
(b) Collector
Where the gross agricultural in·
come docs not exceed Rs. I lakh.
In all cases.
B
c
(c) Officer
appointed
under
proviso to sutrs~ction (I).
In such cases as may be prcscrlD
bed."
Section 15, insofar as it is material, provides :
" ( 1 ) The Collector shall .
give notice,
by the publication in the Official Gazette and in such
other manner as may be prescribed, requiring every
person, .
. whose total agricultural income
during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount
which is not chargeable to agricultural income-tax to
furnish to such assessing authority and within such
period, not being less than thirty days, as may be specified in the notice. a return in the prescribed form and
verified in the prescribed manner, setting forth .
his total agricultural income during the previous year :
(2)
(3) In the case of any person whose total agricultural income is, in the opinion of the assessing authority,
such amount as to render such person liable to payment
of agricultural income-tax in any year, he may serve in
that year a notice in the prescribed form requiring such
person to furnish within such period, not being less than
thirty days as may be specified in the notice, a return in
the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner
setting forth .
. his total agricultural income
during the previous year :"
E
..
G
H
·'
•
..
r
;
•
I •
•
t
A
B
c
D
U, P. STATE V. Y. D. DUBE (Shah, J.)
165
Section 16 sets out the procedure of assessment by the assessing
authority, and against the order of assessment by the assessing
authority, an appeal lies under s. 21 to the Commissioner.
By
s. 22 power is conferred upon the Board of Revision either on
their own motion or on an application to call for the record of
any proceeding under the Act pending before or decided by any
authority subordinate to the Board, and after such inquiry as they
deem necessary, may pass such orders as they think fit. Section
24 provides for reference of questions of law to the High Court for
opinion.
Sub-section (2), insofar as it is material, provides:
"Within sixty days of the communication of an order
under section 21 or section 22 the assessee may, by
application .
. apply to the Board to refer to
the High Court any question of law arising out of such
order or decision, and the Board shall, within sixty days
of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement
of the case, and refer it, with their opinion to the
High Court : "
Under sub-s. ( 4) of s. 24 the High Court is authorised, where
the Board has rejected the application under sub-s. (2) or refused
to state the case on such application, if the High Court is not
satisfied about the correctness of the decision of the Board, to
E require the Board to state the case and refer it to the High Court.
Section 25 authorises the assessing authority to assess or reassess income which has escaped assessment in any year or has
been assessed at too low a rate, after serving a notice on the person
liable to pay agricultural income-tax within one year of the end
of the year in which the income has escaped assessment. Section 44
11
confers power upon the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
Under the scheme of the Act, the Collector of the District is
the assessing authority generally in respect of the entire District
over which he has revenue jurisdiction, and he is invested with
G the power to issue a general notice calling upon every person
whose income is chargeable to tax, to make a return of his
income.
The Assistant Collector (who is also called the SubDivisional Officer)
in charge of a sub-division is invested with
power as assessing authority within his revenue jurisdiction, where
the gross agricultural income of an assessee does not exce~d R ~. 1
H lakh. Power of the assessing authority under s. 15(3) to issue a
special notice calling for a return may be exercised within the year
of assessment, and not thereafter. Power to re-assess under s. 25
166
SUPllEME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 3 S.C.lt.
is also restricted and the assessing authority may not issue a notice
A
of "escaped assessment" after one year from the end of the year of
assessment.
It is necessary to remember that these proceedings come before
us in appeal against the order passed by the High Court on a
reference made under s. 24.
Jurisdiction of the High Court under
B
s. 24 is advisory : the High Court must answer the question referred
to it and cannot travel outside the terms of the reference.
This
caution is necessary because learned counsel appearing for the
parties have sought to canvass many questions which were never
raised before the Board and even before the High Court. The
question whether the order passed by the Board setting aside the
C
orders of assessment of the Sub-Divisional Officer and of the
Collector and even of the Commissioner is justifiable in law is not
referred to us.
We are only concerned to deal with the limited
question whether the Board had authority on the view expressed by
it to make the order directing re-assessment, and that question must
be decided in the light of the provisions of s. 15 ( 3) and s. 25
D
of the Act.
It may be assumed that a notice under s. 15(1) was issued by
the Collector (though there is no reference to such a no!ice in the
record) requiring every person
whose
income exceeds
the
maximum amount exempt from tax to submit a return in the Form
i:
No. I (a) prescribed by the Rules. It is common ground however
that the respondent filed the return in pursuance of a notice under
s. 15(3), and that the Sub-Divisional Officer found in the course
of the assessment proceeding that the gross agricultural income
of the respondent exceeded Rs. I lakh.
The order of assessment
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside by the Board
I'
because the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to assess to
tax income of a person whose gross agricultural income exceeded
Rs. I lakh, and the Board agreed with the Commissioner that the
order of the Collector being in "review or substitution" of the
order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was also liable to be set aside.
Counsel for the State raised three contentions in support of
the plea that the Board had power to direct the Collector to make
a fresh assessment :
(I) The Sub-Divisional Officer was invested with
authority to issue a notice under s. 15 (3) calling for a
return, and since this notice was not set aside by the
Commissioner or by the Board of Revision, in making
the order of assessment pursuant to the order of the
G
H
•
•
...
..
•
•
•
·,
I
' '
•
A
U. P. STATE V. Y. D. DUBE (Shah,/.)
Board, the Collector will not be transgressing any statutory restrictions imposed bys. 15(3) or s. 25 of the
Act.
(2) Without .a fresh notice under s. 15(3), the
Collector has the power, by virtue of the notice under
s. 15 (1), to assess the income of the respondent on the
return made pursuant to the notice issued by the SubDivisional Officer.
167
(3) Since notice under s. 25 of the Act for reassessment of the escaped income was issued within the
period prescribed by s. 25 ( 3), and the notice was otherC
wise valid, assessment proceedings directed by the Board
may be founded by the Collector on that notice.
D
E
F
.....
G
H
In proceedings for assessment the Sub-Divisional Officer found
that the total gross income of the respondent exceeded Rs. 1 lakh,
and under s. 14(2) the Collector alone was the assessing authority in respect of the income of the respondent.
The contention
raised by counsel for the State that by the expression "without
prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section ( 1)"
in sub-s. (2) of s. 14 power is intended to be conferred upon the
Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division to assess income
of an assessee whose gross agricultural income exceeds Rs. 1 lakh,
cannot be accepted.
The first sub-section of s. 14 declares the
Collector and the Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division
as assessing authorities within the limits of their respective revenue
jurisdictions. By sub-s. ( 2) it is directed that the authorities
mentioned in sub-s. ( 2) shall be the assessing authorities in the
cases "mentioned against each".
Reading sub-ss. ( 1) and (2)
together there can be no doubt that the Collector is the as,essing
authority within his revenue jurisdiction with unlimited juriodiction, and the Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division is the
assessing authority within his revenue jurisdiction with power <'nly
in cases in which the gross agricultural income of the assessee does
not exceed Rs. 1 lakh,
There is in the Act no procedure prescribed about ascertainment of the gross agricultural income of an assessee which is
determinative of the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, but
as in other taxing statutes where the taxing authority is constituted
a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction the authority has the power,
subject to rectification by a superior Court, to decide facts on the
proof of which his jurisdiction depends.
The Sub-Divisional
Officer had therefore power to decide whether the gross agricul-
168
SUPRF.Mll COURT
REPORTS
[1966) 3 S.C.R.
tural income of the respondent did or did not exceed Rs. I lakh.
The notice under s. 15 ( 3) was issued to the respondent by tho
Sub-Divisional Officer, presumably on the assumpt:on that the gross
agricultural income of the respondent did not exceed Rs. I lakh,
but when the Sub-Divisional Officer
found on scrutiny of the
return that the gross agricultural income of the respondent exceeded Rs. I lakh, he could not exercise the powers of the assessing
authority.
There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for
transfer of proceeding from the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Collector, when the Sub-Divisional Officer in dealing with a return
finds that he has no jurisdiction. When he arrived at the conclusion
that the gross income of the respondent exceeded Rs. I lakh, the
proceeding initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer including the
issue of notice must, unless that conclusion is set aside by a superior
authority, be held unauthorisro, for the power to issue a notice
under s. 15 ( 3) is only conferred upon the assessing authority, and
the assessing authority within the meaning of s. 2(6) is a person
authorised to assess agricultural income-tax.
The Sub-Divisional
Officer had no power to usscss agricultural income of the respondent, b~cause his gross income exceeded Rs. I lakh, and he had
on that account no power to issue the notice.
It is true that the Board of Revision did not expres;ly set
aside the notice issued by the. Sub-Divisionul Officer und~r s. 15
( 3), but the Board agreed with the Commissioner that the original order of assessment passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer "was
ahsolutely without jurisdiction", and directed that the entire case
be reopened by the Collector and fresh assessment of the income
for Fasli year 1355 be made by the Collector after giving notice
to the respondent. The Board thereafter passed the same order
which the Commissioner claimed without authority to make.
It
must, therefore, be held that the notice issued
by the SubDivisional Officer was not only unauthorised, but was also quashed
by the Board.
A
B
c
D
E
F
The second contention that when notice under s. 15 (!) is
issued, the Collector may without a notice under s. 15 (3) comG
mence fresh assessment proceeding on the return made to the
Sub-Divisional Officer has no substance. This question does not
appear to have been raised or argued at any stage before the
Board. Again, if the proceedings for assessment were commenced
on a return made pursuant to an invalid notice, and the proceedings for assessment were set aside on the ground of want of
H
jurisdiction of the authority making the assessment, the entire
proceedings must be deemed to be vacated, and relying upon the
•
•
,
I •
•
•
U. P. STATE V. Y. D. DUBE (Shah, J.)
169
return made to the authority who had assessed the income, another
authority cannot proceed to assess the income of the assessee.
Mere issue of a notice under s. 15 ( 1) cannot come to the aid of
the Co!lec-tor in commencing fresh assessment proceedings many
years after the date on which that notice was issued, on a return
which was not made to him.
When after a general notice a
special notice was issued unauthorisedly and proceedings were
taken pursuant to that special notice, the general notice cannot
be relied upon to start fresh proceeding for assessment on the
assumption that the return must be deemed to be made to him
pursuant to the general notice.
The Collector must, before proceeding to assess, issue under s. 15 ( 3) a notice when no return
was filed pursuant to the notice under s. 15 (1), and a notice under
s. 15(3) cannot issue after expiry of the year of assessment to
which the notice relates.
The third contention also has no substance.
The Collector
issued a notice under s. 25 for re-assessing income which had
D
escaped assessment and assessed the income of the respondent,
but the proceeding of the Collector was set aside as unauthorised,
and the Collector was directed to start a fresh proceeding for
assessment.
The notice issued by the Collector must also be
deemed to be quashed.
The Collector has, therefore, under the
direction given by the Board, to issue a fresh notice before a proE ceeding for assessment may be started, and the earlier notice
issued under s. 25 cannot be relied upon by the Collector.
The High Court was therefore right in the answer which it
recorded.
It is somewhat unfortunate that on account of the·
diverse orders passed by the authorities from time to time without
F
a correct RP.predation of the scheme of the Act, the respondent
escapes liability to pay tax which was lawfully due by him, but
that cannot justify the commencement of a fresh proceeding for
assessment contrary to the provisions of the statute.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
There will, however, be
G
no order as to costs in this Court and in the High Court.
Appeal dismissed.
L7 Sup CI/66-12