ivil Appeal No 799 of 1963
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 1 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No 205 of 1958
section P Varmaa for the appellant
C B Agarwala O P Rana and Atiqur Rehman for the respondents
337 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao J
This appeal by special leave raises the ques tion of the scope of the retrospective operation of the UP Agricultural Income tax Amendment Act 1956 UP 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 UP Agricultural Income tax Act 1948 UP Act 3 of 1949
On February 9 1956 UP Agricultural Income tax 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 UP 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 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 42761 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 under article 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
Mr section P Varma learned counsel for the appellant contended 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 of 1949 the defi nition 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 UP Gazette Extraordinary 338 dated May 19 1956
Section 2 of Act 14 of 1956 reads In section 2 of the UP 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 UP 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 days 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
 A combined reading of the said provisions establishes that if an application for review was filed within the time prescribed the 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 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 income tax authority had filed an application before the Collector to review his order
The Collector reviewed the order and 339 set aside the same
The result was that the proceedings before the Additional Collector were restored
As by the amendment the Additional Collector must be 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 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 in the said proceedings
The decisions cited by the learned counsel are really beside the mark
He relied upon the judgments of this Court in section C Prashar vs Vasantsen1 and Commissioner of Income tax Bihar vs Lakhmir Singh2
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 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 prescribed
When once that power of review was exercised the proceedings were reopened
In 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
Appeal dismissed 1 1964 1 SCR 29
2 1964 1 SCR 148


Summary:
The appellant was assessed to agricultural income tax by the Assistant Collector Banaras UP Act 3 of 1949 under which assessment was made mentioned only the Collector  a competent to make assessment
The assessment made by the Assistant Collector was therefore set aside by the Collector
Subsequently the law was amended by UP Act 14 of 1956 to provide that the word Collector  would include Assistant 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 coming into force of the amendment
Such application having been filed in the appellant s case the Collector set 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 failed 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 operation of the provisions relating to jurisdiction would not extend the time for making the assessment
HELD  The Collector s order on the review application had the effect of restoring the earlier proceedings
No question of limitation could possibly arise for those proceedings were initiated in time and must be deemed to have been pending throughout and the fresh assessment was made in those very proceedings
339 A B
section C Prashar vs Vasantsen  and Commissioner of Income tax Bihar vs Lakhmir Singh AIR  held inapplicable