Revisional power under amended agricultural tax law prevails over earlier general clause; limitation objection left to the statutory authority.

The later Explanation inserted into section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 was treated as a special provision defining the Joint Commissioner's revisional power, and it prevailed over the earlier general application clause in section 2 of Karnataka Act 14 of 1983. On that construction, the Joint Commissioner could revise assessment orders passed before 31 March 1982, subject to the limitation in section 35(2). The limitation objection to the impugned notices was held to involve a factual inquiry and was therefore left open for the statutory authority to decide, rather than be resolved in writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Explanation inserted into section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 conferred revisional power on the Joint Commissioner in respect of assessment orders relating to periods prior to 31 March 1982 notwithstanding section 2 of Karnataka Act 14 of 1983; (ii) Whether the challenge based on limitation to the impugned notices could be decided in writ proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the Explanation inserted into section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 conferred revisional power on the Joint Commissioner in respect of assessment orders relating to periods prior to 31 March 1982 notwithstanding section 2 of Karnataka Act 14 of 1983.

Analysis: Section 35 was amended to enable the Joint Commissioner to exercise the same revisional power as the Commissioner. The later amendment inserted an Explanation declaring that the revisional power was exercisable in respect of orders passed before or after conferment of such power, subject only to the limitation in sub-section (2). The Court held that the Explanation was a special provision as to the scope of revisional power, while section 2 of the earlier Amendment Act was only a general provision governing the application of the amendments. Applying the principle that a special provision prevails over a general one, and keeping in view the object of removing the difficulty in administration, the Court gave full effect to the Explanation.

Conclusion: The Explanation was not confined by section 2 of Karnataka Act 14 of 1983, and the Joint Commissioner could revise orders even in respect of earlier periods, subject to section 35(2).

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge based on limitation to the impugned notices could be decided in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The notices were under challenge before the writ court, but the objection that they were beyond the period of four years involved factual inquiry. The Court held that such a plea could be raised before the authority issuing the notices, which was required to consider all objections in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was left open for determination by the Joint Commissioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed on the substantive challenge to the revisional competence of the Joint Commissioner, while the petitioners were left at liberty to raise the limitation objection before the statutory authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later amendment inserts a special Explanation clarifying the scope of revisional power, that special provision governs over an earlier general application clause, and the power operates according to the later amendment subject to the express limitation provision.

---