Tax computation option cannot be varied without permission, and revenue-based refusal of that permission was upheld.

The proviso to Section 6(1) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1949 was read as barring any change in the elected method of computation unless the Board of Revenue granted permission, and the restriction was not confined to a single assessment year. Refusal of permission was upheld because the record showed consideration of the applications and revenue loss was a relevant factor in a taxing statute. The proviso was also sustained against challenges under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f), as conferral of discretion in a tax scheme was not unconstitutional discrimination. Mandamus was unavailable to compel forms or reconsideration once the discretion had been lawfully exercised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Section 6(1) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1949 permitted an assessee to vary the method of computation in a later assessment year without the permission of the Board of Revenue. (ii) Whether the Board of Revenue, in refusing permission, acted mechanically, capriciously, or on irrelevant considerations. (iii) Whether the proviso to Section 6(1) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1949 was unconstitutional as offending Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. (iv) Whether a writ of mandamus could issue to compel supply of forms or reconsideration of the applications.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Section 6(1) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1949 permitted an assessee to vary the method of computation in a later assessment year without the permission of the Board of Revenue.

Analysis: The proviso used the unqualified expression that an assessee who had once exercised the option could not vary the method of computation except with the permission of the Board of Revenue. The restriction was held to operate generally and not merely within a single assessment year. The scheme of the Act, including the return provisions, did not support reading into the proviso a limitation allowing yearly variation as of right.

Conclusion: The proviso barred change of option without permission, and the assessee had no unfettered right to alter the method in the later year.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board of Revenue, in refusing permission, acted mechanically, capriciously, or on irrelevant considerations.

Analysis: The applications, the office note, the deputy secretary's note, and the record before the senior member were treated as sufficient material to show consideration of the merits. The loss of revenue was held to be a relevant factor because the statute was a taxing measure intended to secure revenue, and the authority charged with administering it could properly consider the revenue consequences of granting permission. The Court also held that the material did not justify a finding that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or without application of mind.

Conclusion: The Board's refusal was not vitiated by mechanical action, irrelevant considerations, or want of bona fide exercise of discretion.

Issue (iii): Whether the proviso to Section 6(1) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1949 was unconstitutional as offending Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The contention under Article 19(1)(f) was rejected as the provision operated in aid of a valid taxing scheme and did not impose an unlawful restriction on property rights. The Article 14 challenge also failed because the conferral of discretion on the Board of Revenue did not, by itself, amount to unconstitutional discrimination. A wide discretion in a taxing statute was not treated as fatal where it was exercised within the statute and for the purpose of the Act.

Conclusion: The proviso was upheld as constitutional and did not infringe Articles 14 or 19(1)(f).

Issue (iv): Whether a writ of mandamus could issue to compel supply of forms or reconsideration of the applications.

Analysis: Mandamus was held not to lie where the duty was discretionary and had been exercised reasonably and within jurisdiction. Since the Board had already decided the applications, there was no basis to compel supply of forms on the footing that permission had been wrongly withheld. The writ could not be used as a substitute for appeal or to control the manner in which a lawful discretion had been exercised.

Conclusion: No writ of mandamus was available on the facts.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to change the method of computation was sustained, the constitutional challenge failed, and the writ applications were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute confers discretion on a designated authority to permit variation of an elected method of computation, that discretion must be exercised within the statute and may legitimately take revenue consequences into account; mandamus will not issue to control a discretion so exercised, and the mere grant of such discretion does not by itself offend Articles 14 or 19(1)(f).

---