Limitation for agricultural income-tax recovery did not bar proceedings after substitution of the recovery provision.

Recovery of agricultural income-tax was held not to be barred by limitation because the original three-year period for commencing recovery had not expired before the amended recovery provision came into force. The amendment substituted the earlier provision and removed the limitation clause, so the unamended bar could no longer govern a demand that was still alive on the date of substitution. The recovery proceeding was therefore validly maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the recovery proceeding for agricultural income-tax was barred by limitation under the unamended law and whether the subsequent amendment to the recovery provision removed that bar.

Analysis: The original law contained a three-year limitation for commencing recovery proceedings from the date the demand fell due. Before the expiry of that period, the amended provision came into force and substituted the earlier recovery provision without continuing the limitation clause. The demand was still alive on the date of the amendment, so the earlier limitation had not yet matured into a complete bar. Once the old provision stood substituted, the unamended limitation clause could no longer control the recovery action.

Conclusion: The recovery proceeding was not barred by limitation and was validly maintainable.

---