Tax challenge by writ is a civil proceeding, and retrospective interest rules can justify rectification of assessment orders.

A writ petition under article 226 challenging a tax levy was treated as a civil proceeding for article 133(1) because it concerned civil rights and relief against their infringement, not the form of procedure, so the certificate was competent. A retrospective proviso to section 18A(6) of the 1922 Income-tax Act, read with rule 48 from its effective date, meant that failure to charge interest in the assessment order was an error apparent on the record. Rectification under section 35 was therefore available, and the challenge to the interest demand failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under article 226 challenging levy of tax is a "civil proceeding" for the purpose of certificate under article 133(1) of the Constitution; (ii) Whether the omission to levy interest under section 18A(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could be rectified under section 35 after the retrospective insertion of the proviso empowering reduction or waiver of interest and the making of rule 48.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under article 226 challenging levy of tax is a "civil proceeding" for the purpose of certificate under article 133(1) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The expression "civil proceeding" was held to cover proceedings in which civil rights are asserted and relief is sought for their infringement, whether the remedy is pursued in a suit or by writ. A proceeding challenging action of revenue authorities and seeking relief against unlawful levy of tax directly concerns civil rights of the taxpayer. The nature of the proceeding depends on the right infringed and the relief claimed, not on the tribunal or form of procedure. A tax-related writ petition under article 226 therefore does not cease to be civil merely because it is not tried as a civil suit or because it concerns revenue.

Conclusion: The proceeding was a civil proceeding, and the certificate under article 133(1) was competent.

Issue (ii): Whether the omission to levy interest under section 18A(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could be rectified under section 35 after the retrospective insertion of the proviso empowering reduction or waiver of interest and the making of rule 48.

Analysis: The proviso inserted by the amendment was given retrospective effect from 1 April 1952, and rule 48 framed pursuant to it had to be read as operating along with the proviso from that date. On that footing, the assessment order which failed to apply the law as retrospectively deemed to exist contained an error apparent from the record. The Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner were required to take the retrospective proviso and the rule into account, and the omission to charge interest was not protected from rectification merely because the rules were framed later. The rectification power under section 35 was therefore available.

Conclusion: The rectification was valid and the challenge to the demand for interest failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the High Court's certificate was valid and the rectification of the assessment order under section 35 was upheld, leaving the interest liability intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ proceeding under article 226 that seeks relief against unlawful tax action is a civil proceeding for article 133, and a retrospective tax amendment together with the rules made under it can render an assessment order inconsistent with the deemed law a mistake apparent from the record liable to rectification.

---