Retrospective validating amendment confirmed Additional Collector's jurisdiction and allowed pending appeal to follow amended law.

A retrospective validating amendment to agricultural income-tax law extended the definition of "Collector" to include an Additional Collector and cured past jurisdictional defects, so assessments made by such an officer were treated as valid. A review mechanism in the amending Act did not exclude the appellate court's power in a pending appeal, because the appeal had to be decided under the law as retrospectively amended. The amendment therefore operated to sustain the assessment and to require application of the amended law in appellate proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the retrospective amendment to the agricultural income-tax law, an Additional Collector invested with the powers of a Collector under the land revenue law was competent to make the assessment; (ii) Whether the remedy of review under the amending Act was the only remedy available so that the appellate court could not decide the appeal in the light of the amended law.

Issue (i): Whether, after the retrospective amendment to the agricultural income-tax law, an Additional Collector invested with the powers of a Collector under the land revenue law was competent to make the assessment.

Analysis: The amended provisions expressly substituted the definition of "Collector" so as to include an Additional Collector and further validated past orders, actions, proceedings, and jurisdictions exercised under the principal Act and the rules framed thereunder. The amendment was given retrospective operation and was intended to treat assessments made by such Additional Collectors as having always been properly taken.

Conclusion: The Additional Collector was competent to make the assessment, and the assessment could not be invalidated for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the remedy of review under the amending Act was the only remedy available so that the appellate court could not decide the appeal in the light of the amended law.

Analysis: A provision enabling review of earlier orders did not curtail the power of the appellate court in a pending appeal. Where the law has been retrospectively amended before the appeal is heard, the appellate court must decide the matter according to the law as it stands and give effect to the legislative intent expressed in the amendment.

Conclusion: Review was not the only remedy, and the appellate court was entitled to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the amended law.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was upheld because the retrospective validating amendment cured the jurisdictional objection, and the appeals succeeded on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A pending appeal must be decided in accordance with a retrospective validating amendment that confers jurisdiction on the authority below, and a review provision in the amending statute does not exclude the appellate court's power to apply the amended law.

---