JUDGMENT B. Mukherji, J. - The Board of Agricultural Income-Tax has stated a case in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court by its order dated the 28th of September, 1954. 2. The question that has been referred by the Board for our opinion has been put in the following words :- "Whether the expression 'agricultural income-tax' in paragraph (A), (B) of Part I of the Schedule in the Act includes `super-tax'?" 3. In order to be able to answer the question it is necessary to notice just a few facts. 4. The assessee was Raja Saiyid Muhammad Saadat Ali Khan of Nanpara, which was an estate in the district of Bahraich. The assessee was assessed to agricultural income-tax for the years 1355 and 1356 Fasli. For the first year he was assessed to pay a tax of Rs. 2,84,457/- while for the latter year he was assessed to pay a tax. in the sum of Rs. 3,33,209|8/-. The assessee appealed against the order of the taxing authority and the Commissioner on appeal enhanced the tax so that the assessee was called upon to pay Rs. 3,64,743/13/- for the year 1355 Fasli and Rs. 4,10,213/- for 1356 Fasli. 5. Before the Board the assessee raised several contentions which were repelled by the Board. One of the contentions which was raised before the Board and in respect of which, the Board has made this reference was as to the true interpretation of clause (b) in Part I of the Schedule. Clause (b) says that 'the agricultural income tax' payable shall in no case exceed half the amount by which the total agricultural income exceeds Rs. 3000/-. The contention of the assessee is that the word `income-tax' in this clause included supertax as well, even though this super tax was calculated according to different rates as provided for in Part II of the Schedule. 6. The Schedule according to which the tax has to be determined has been put into two distinct parts. Part I deals with agricultural income-tax, that is to say the rates applicable for determining the agricultural income-tax, while Part II deals with the rates according to which agricultural super-tax is to be determined. Under Part I there are these clauses:- Clause (a) is in these words : 'no agricultural income-tax shall be payable on a total agricultural income which does not exceed Rs. Under Part I there are these clauses:- Clause (a) is in these words : 'no agricultural income-tax shall be payable on a total agricultural income which does not exceed Rs. 3,000/-.' Clause (b) is in these words:- 'the agricultural income-tax' payable shall in no case exceed half the amount by which the total agricultural income exceeds Rs. 3000/-.' 7. Under Part II there are no such limiting clauses. 8. The main question that therefore falls for our determination is whether 'agricultural income-tax' and 'agricultural supertax' are the same entity or to put it differently whether agricultural super-tax can be deemed to be included in the term 'agricultural income-tax.' In our opinion the language of Sec. 3 and its provisions supply a key to the answer which we have to give to the problem stated above. Sec. 3 is in these words:- "(i) Agricultural income-tax and super-tax at the rate or rates specified in the schedule shall be charged for each car in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of this Act and rules framed under clauses (a) (b) and (c) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 44 on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person. "(2) Where there is included in the total agricultural income of an assessee any income exempted from agricultural income-tax by or under the provisions of this Act, the agricultural income-tax payable by the assessee shall be an amount bearing same proportion to the total amount of the agricultural income-tax which would have been payable on the total agricultural income had no part of it been exempted as the unexempted portion of the total agricultural income bears to the total agricultural income." 9. Sec. 3, therefore, clearly indicates that the tax on agricultural income was categorised under two distinct heads, one called agricultural income-tax and the other termed agricultural super-tax. The intention of the legislature was perfectly clear in keeping these two categories of tax separately for not only have these two categories been separately dealt with for the purpose of computation in so far as their rates are different but they have been spoken of as two separate types of tax. The intention of the legislature was perfectly clear in keeping these two categories of tax separately for not only have these two categories been separately dealt with for the purpose of computation in so far as their rates are different but they have been spoken of as two separate types of tax. The fact that in the Schedule there were two separate parts made is a clear indication to our minds of the intention of the legislature to keep those two parts separate and that nothing of the one part was going to affect, add to or detract from the provisions of the other part. 10. For the reasons given above we answer the question in the negative. 11. Parties will bear their own costs of this reference.