Judgment :- 1. In this writ petition, the question that arises for decision is as to whether the petitioner-tarwad is liable for payment of super tax, under the provisions of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 - Act XXII of 1950. 2. According to Mr. V.K. Krishna Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, the assessment made by the officer, making the petitioner-tarwad liable for payment of super tax is illegal and void. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions that have been raised by Mr. V.K.K. Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, it is necessary to set out the circumstances under which this writ petition has been filed. 4. There is no controversy that the petitioner is an Undivided Marumakkathayam Tarwad; and for the year 1960 - 61 there was a pre-assessment notice issued by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chittur. It is not necessary for me to go into the various other matters mentioned therein because in this writ petition, the attack relates exclusively only to that part of the final assessment order Ex-P3 levying super tax as against the petitioner. Therefore, I express no views whatever regarding the various other matters mentioned either in the pre-assessment notice or the objections filed by the petitioner or even in the final order of assessment Ex. P3. 5. So far as the particular point is concerned, it will be seen that even in the pre-assessment notice Ex. P1, the officer has stated that this is an Undivided Marumakkathayam Tarwad consisting of 17 members and the income due to 5 members is Rs. 14,885. On this basis, the officer works out the rate applicable for the charge of Agricultural Income Tax under S.3 (3) of the Act at nP.10.77. After calculating the Agricultural Income Tax and surcharge payable in this manner, the assessing officer states that supertax is payable since the total income of the tarwad exceeds Rs. 25,000. At this stage, I may mention that the total agricultural net income of this tarwad has been fixed in the sum of Rs. 50,606-00 in the earlier part of the notice. 6. The assessing officer, after stating that the super tax is payable since the total income exceeds Rs. 25,000, further states that the concessional rate on the share income due to 5 members is applicable only for the purposes of Agricultural Income Tax. 50,606-00 in the earlier part of the notice. 6. The assessing officer, after stating that the super tax is payable since the total income exceeds Rs. 25,000, further states that the concessional rate on the share income due to 5 members is applicable only for the purposes of Agricultural Income Tax. Then the officer works out the super tax and accordingly, fixes the amount of super tax and surcharge as payable by the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 3,671-81. This is totalled up with the Agricultural Income Tax already levied. There is a requirement in Ex-Pi that objections to the proposals are to be made on or before 28-11-1960. 7. The petitioner appears to have filed a fairly lengthy objection evidenced by Ex. P2. Here again, as I mentioned earlier, the only relevant aspect to be considered is when he challenges the jurisdiction of the assessing officer to levy super tax on this tarwad. It is not really necessary for me to mention the reasons given in the said objection petition, because all those aspects have been presented before me by Mr. V.K.K. Menon and I will have to deal with them in the course of my judgment. The only thing to be noted now in the objection petition, is that the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the assessing authority to levy super tax on this tarwad. 8. In the final order of assessment, Ex. P3 dated 9-12-60 passed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Chittur, after referring to the various matters and also dealing with the other points relating to the levy of Agricultural Income Tax, in dealing more specifically with the question of super tax, the officer reiterates his original view as indicated in Ex. P1, that super tax is payable since the total income of the person exceeds Rs. 25,000 and that the concessional rate on the share of income due to 5 members is applicable only for purposes of Agricultural Income Tax levy. Here again, I may state that the total net Agricultural income of this tarwad has been fixed in the sum of Rs. 50,606-00. In view of the fact, that this is an undivided Marumakkathayam Tarwad consisting of 17 members, the officer works out the share of 5 members in the sum of Rs. 14,885 and accordingly, applies also the rate under S.3 (3) of the Act at nP. 10.77. 50,606-00. In view of the fact, that this is an undivided Marumakkathayam Tarwad consisting of 17 members, the officer works out the share of 5 members in the sum of Rs. 14,885 and accordingly, applies also the rate under S.3 (3) of the Act at nP. 10.77. After calculating the Income Tax on this basis, according to him in view of the fact that the total income exceeds Rs. 25,000/- the officer makes the petitioner liable in the sum of Rs. 3,671.81 by way of super tax also. 9. It is this part of the order of the assessing officer and covered by Ex. P3 that is attacked before me by Mr. V.K.K. Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner. Once again I state, as specifically mentioned in the writ petition, that regarding all the other points, which are covered by Ext. P3, the petitioner is seeking the appropriate relief available to him under the statute itself. Therefore, I have no occasion to deal with this aspect, nor do I express any opinion regarding other points dealt with by the assessing officer under Ex. P3. According to Mr. V.K.K. Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, a charge of super tax is really covered by the provisions contained in Chapter IX namely, S.56,57 and 58. In particular, Mr. V.K.K. Menon placed considerable reliance on S.58 to show that the charge of super tax is also to be considered to be controlled by the provisions of S.3 (3) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, for the purposes of super tax also, the net income in this case is to be Rs. 50,606.00; but in view of the application of S.3 (3) of the Act, which according to him, controls also the levy of super tax, the super tax is to be assessed at the average rate applicable to the share of the agricultural income due to 5 members of the family or to Rs. 6,000 whichever is higher; and the contention is further pursued by urging that on this basis no super tax will be payable at all, since as per Part II of the schedule to the Act, no super tax is payable on the first Rs. 25,000/- of the total agricultural income. 6,000 whichever is higher; and the contention is further pursued by urging that on this basis no super tax will be payable at all, since as per Part II of the schedule to the Act, no super tax is payable on the first Rs. 25,000/- of the total agricultural income. Shortly, the contention is that the charge, assessment etc., of super tax is subject to the provisions of S.3(3) of the Act, which has been enacted as a concession and in favour of families like tarwad etc. 10. The learned counsel has referred me to some of the provisions of the statute in support of this contention. 11. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State urged that S.3(3) does not at all come into the picture, in the matter of levy and assessment and collection of super tax, even in respect of families, tarwads or other persons referred to in the sub-section, because those are all matters which are specifically dealt with in Chapter IX of the Act. The learned Govt. Pleader in particular, relied upon S.56 and 57 of the Act to show that S.58 can have no bearing regarding the charge or otherwise or the rate which is dealt with under S.3(3) of the Act. On the other hand broadly, the contention of the learned Govt. Pleader is that S.58, can if at all be considered to mean that the procedure available under the statute in respect of the charge, assessment, collection and recovery which is available for purposes of Agricultural Income Tax, are also equally available in respect of the charge, assessment, collection and levy of super tax. 12. Before I consider the contentions of the learned counsel, this is a proper stage to advert to the scheme of the Agricultural Income Tax Act. S.2 (a) defines the expression "Agricultural Income"; S.2(b) "Agricultural Income Tax"; S.2(m) "Person" which will admittedly include also a Marumakkathayam tarwad, like the petitioner before me and S.2 (s) defines the expression "Total Agricultural Income". 13. The Act also is broadly, so far as it is material for the present purpose, divided into Chapters dealing with Charge of Agricultural Income Tax, Chapter II; Return of Income, Assessment, etc., Chapter V; Recovery of Tax and Penalties, Chapter VI; and Super-Tax, Chapter IX. 13. The Act also is broadly, so far as it is material for the present purpose, divided into Chapters dealing with Charge of Agricultural Income Tax, Chapter II; Return of Income, Assessment, etc., Chapter V; Recovery of Tax and Penalties, Chapter VI; and Super-Tax, Chapter IX. S.56, 57 & 58 are the only three sections, which find a place in Chapter IX relating to Super Tax. 14. S.3(1) is the charging section. Though no doubt, Chapter II itself is entitled Charge of Agricultural Income Tax, and the heading of S.3 also is Charge of Agricultural Income Tax, S.3(1) is really the charging section. S.3(1) provides that Agricultural Income-tax, at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each financial year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural Income of the previous year of every person. Pausing here for a minute, though no doubt the sub-section uses the expression "rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act", it will be seen that Part I of the Schedule really deals with the rates of Agricultural Income-tax and Part II of the Schedule really deals with rates of super-tax. Therefore, sub-section (1) of S.3 is the charging section and it also refers to the rate as mentioned in the Schedule of the Act. In my view, sub-sections (2), (3), (4), and (5) of S.3 are to be considered really as provisos or exception to S.3(1) regarding Rates. But for the special provisions mentioned therein the liability for payment of tax will be at the flat rate mentioned in Part I of the Schedule to the Act and as specifically referred to in S.3(1) of the Act. 15. I am omitting from consideration sub-section (2) of S.3. Sub-section (3) of S.3, which really looms large in these proceedings, is as follows: "S. 3 (3). 15. I am omitting from consideration sub-section (2) of S.3. Sub-section (3) of S.3, which really looms large in these proceedings, is as follows: "S. 3 (3). In the case of an undivided Aliasanthana family or branch or Marumakkathayam tarwad including a Nambudiri family or a family like that of the Moothathu or any other class governed by the law applicable to Namboodiries consisting of more than five members and whose agricultural income exceeds six thousand rupees, the tax shall be assessed at the average rate applicable to the share of the agricultural income due to five members of the family or to six thousand rupees, whichever is higher." It will be seen that under this sub-section the particular 'persons' mentioned therein which takes in also a Marumakkathayam tarwad, like the petitioner before me, and consists of more than five members and whose agricultural income exceeds six thousand rupees, in respect of such families it is categorically stated that the tax shall be assessed at the average rate applicable to the share of the agricultural income due to five members of the family or to six thousand rupees, whichever is higher. As I have already pointed out with reference to the order of assessment, that it is on the basis of subsection (3) of S.3 that the officer has fixed the share income due to five members of this tarwad of 17 members in the sum of Rs. 14,885/- and works out the rate at nP.10.77 and at this rate Agricultural Income Tax is calculated on the total income of Rs. 50,606. 16. But for this specific provision in sub-section (3) of S.3, whereby some concession regarding the rate, is shown to the persons mentioned therein, including a Marumakkathayam tarwad, the tax will be assessed on the income of these persons not at the concessional rate referred to in sub-section (3), but really on the flat rate in the schedule as will be clear by the express provisions contained in S.3 (1). 17. Similarly, the concession in the tax to be assessed at the average rate is again given to an undivided Hindu family which satisfies the particular requirements mentioned in sub-section (4) of S.3. Similarly, sub-section (5) also gives some concession in the matter of the tax being assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common, in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in¬common. Similarly, sub-section (5) also gives some concession in the matter of the tax being assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common, in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in¬common. Before I pass on to certain other sections, it is necessary to once again emphasise the scope of sub-section (3) of S.3. 18. Mr. V.K.K. Menon is perfectly justified in his contention that the legislature, by enacting this sub-section (3) of S.3 did intend to give some sort of concession or relief to persons which takes in also a Marumakkathayam tarwad, in the matter of assessment to Agricultural Incometax. But the learned counsel proceeds further and urges that the same concession should be considered to have been given in respect of such families even in the matter of assessment of Super-tax as well. That is the point which is in controversy and which has to be considered in this writ petition. 19. The other provisions which have to be dealt with, are S.10 and the sections in Chapter IX dealing with levy of super-tax. S.10 is really the exemption section which, in my view, does not have much of significance in considering the matter on hand. But I am adverting to it because some of the clauses in S.10 namely, clauses (c), (d) and (e) have been omitted from the operation as will be seen, when a reference is made to S.58 of the Act. S.10 deals only with the exemption from assessment of income-tax. 20. Now coming to the Chapter dealing with super-tax, as I mentioned earlier, it is Chapter IX. In Chapter IX there are three sections namely, S.56, 57 and 58. S.56 relates to charge of income-tax which more or less corresponds to S.3 (1) which makes the charge of agricultural income-tax and I have already adverted to the same. S.57 deals with total agricultural income for purposes of supertax. I have to advert to these two sections, in great detail immediately. S.58 relates to application of Act to super-tax. S.58, which has been very strongly relied upon by Mr. V.K.K. Menon, runs as follows: "S. 58. S.57 deals with total agricultural income for purposes of supertax. I have to advert to these two sections, in great detail immediately. S.58 relates to application of Act to super-tax. S.58, which has been very strongly relied upon by Mr. V.K.K. Menon, runs as follows: "S. 58. All the provisions of this Act relating to the charge, assessment, collection and recovery of agricultural income-tax except those contained in sub-section (1) of S.3 and Clause (c), (d) and (e) of S.10 shall apply so far as may be to the charge, assessment, collection and recovery of super-tax." S. 56 which is the charging section, excluding the two provisos which are not relevant for the present purpose, runs as follows:- "S. 56. Charge of super-tax:- In addition to the agricultural income-tax charged for any year, there shall be charged, levied and paid for that year in respect of the total agricultural income of the previous year of any individual, Hindu undivided family, undivided Aliyasanthana family or branch or Marumakkathayam tarwad, company, unregistered firm or other association of persons not being a registered firm or the partners of the firm or members of the association individually an additional duty of agricultural income-tax (in this Act referred to as super-tax) at the rate or rates laid down in Part II of the Schedule." It will be seen that under S.56 extracted above, an addition to the agricultural income-tax is made in respect of the total agricultural income of the previous year of the various persons mentioned therein which includes also a Marumakkathayam tarwad. Apart from that, it is also specifically stated that it is an additional duty of agricultural income-tax which is referred to as supertax that is levied and it also specifically says that the levy is to be at the rate or rates laid down in Part II of the Schedule'. 21. I have already adverted to the two Parts in the schedule, Part I relating to rate of agricultural income-tax and Part II dealing with rate of super-tax. Therefore, S.56, apart from making a levy of super-tax, also clearly indicates that the said levy, as an additional duty, is to be at the rate or rates laid down in Part II of the Schedule.l. S.56, in relation to super-tax is more or less identical, to S.3 (1) in relation to agricultural income-tax. 22. Therefore, S.56, apart from making a levy of super-tax, also clearly indicates that the said levy, as an additional duty, is to be at the rate or rates laid down in Part II of the Schedule.l. S.56, in relation to super-tax is more or less identical, to S.3 (1) in relation to agricultural income-tax. 22. S.57 again, in my view, is a fairly important section. It deals with total agricultural income for purposes of super-tax. That section runs as follows: "S. 57. Total agricultural income for purposes of super-tax:- Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the total income of any individual, Hindu, undivided family, undivided Aliyasanthana family or branch or Marumakkathayam tarwad, company, unregistered firm, or other association of persons shall, for the purposes of super-tax, be the total agricultural income as assessed for the purposes of agricultural income-tax and where assessment of total income has become final and conclusive for the purposes of agricultural income-tax for any year, the assessment shall also be final and conclusive for the purposes of supertax for the same year." From the section extracted above, it will be seen that the total income of the various persons mentioned therein including a Marumakkathayam tarwad for the purposes of super-tax, is the total agricultural income as assessed for the purposes of agricultural income-tax. 23. S.58 I have already extracted. 24. According to Mr. V.K.K. Menon, S.58 clearly states that all the provisions in the Act relating to (a) charge, (b) assessment, (c) collection and (d) recovery of agricultural income-tax except those contained in sub-section (1) of S.3 and clauses (c), (d) and (e) of S.10 shall apply so far as may be to the charge, assessment, collection and recovery of super-tax. 25. Mr. V.K.K. Menon learned counsel, urged that sub-section (1) of S.3 has been omitted under S.58, because S.56 has taken the place of making a charge of super-tax. Therefore, the learned "counsel urged that Sub-section (3) of S.3 which relates to the charge, is also taken in by S.58, when it says that all those provisions will apply relating to super tax also. I am not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel. No doubt, Mr. V.K.K. Menon referred me to a decision of the Supreme Court regarding as to what Sections in the Indian Income-tax Act are to be considered as charging sections. I am not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel. No doubt, Mr. V.K.K. Menon referred me to a decision of the Supreme Court regarding as to what Sections in the Indian Income-tax Act are to be considered as charging sections. In my opinion, that decision doe's not render any assistance regarding the matter on hand. 26. S.56, I have already pointed out, clearly states that it is to be an additional duty of agricultural income-tax or super-tax at the rate or rates laid down in Part II of the Schedule. 27. I have already stated that S.3 (1) also states that there is to be a levy of agricultural income-tax at the rates mentioned in the schedule. If S.3 (1) has stood by itself, without the further sub-sections there and especially S.3 (3), the families like the tarwad in question, will have to pay agricultural income-tax, not at the concessional rate, but at the uniform rate prescribed in Part I of the schedule. 28. S.56 does not make any such exception whatsoever, so far as I could see, because it says that the rate is to be as laid down in Part II of the schedule. 29. The other necessary elements for the purposes of fixing the rate and ascertaining the super-tax payable, are again to be found in S.57 of the Act. S.57 clearly states that in respect of the various persons mentioned therein, which includes also a Marumakkathayam tarwad, so far as total income is concerned, that total income for purposes of super-tax is the total agricultural income as assessed for purposes of agricultural income-tax. 30. S.3(3) deals with a concessional rate for the purposes of assessment, when it says that the rate is to be on the share income of five members of the family; whereas S.57, in my view, says that for purposes of supertax, what is to be taken into account is the total agricultural income that has been assessed for the purposes of agricultural income-tax. In this case, there can be no controversy, that under Ext. P3, the total agricultural income as assessed for the purposes of agricultural income-tax is a sum of Rs. 50,606/-. In this case, there can be no controversy, that under Ext. P3, the total agricultural income as assessed for the purposes of agricultural income-tax is a sum of Rs. 50,606/-. If that is so, and especially in the absence of any indication in the statute that the Legislature intended to extend the benefit of a concessional rate in respect of the persons taken in by S.3(3) even regarding the levy of super-tax, in my view, S.56 and 57 will have to exclusively govern those matters. 31. I am not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. V.K.K. Menon that because of the provisions contained in S.58 it should be considered that S.3 (3) will control the levy of super tax also. In my view, S.58 has to be understood, in the light of what the Legislature has already provided by the two preceding sections occurring in the same statute dealing with super tax namely, S.56 and 57. S.56 and 57, in my view, deal with all matters which can relate to the question of charge, and assessment of super-tax. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. V.K.K. Menon that S. 58 in any way, controls either the specific provisions contained in S.56 or S.57; nor can it be understood to have the effect of making the S.3 (3) control the provisions governing the levy of super tax. When special provisions regarding the levy of additional duty by way of super tax have been made in S.56 and the rate or, rates as laid down in Part II has also been fixed and when it is further provided in S.57, what is the total income to be taken into account for purposes of levying the super tax, in my view, S.58 can have application only to matters regarding the procedure applicable for these purposes. Considered in this light, S.58, in my view, is quite clear namely, that it does not in any way seek to control the other provisions of the statute regarding the levy of super tax. S.58 must have its natural meaning namely, that all provisions by way of procedure and otherwise which are available regarding the charge, assessment, collection and levy of agricultural income-tax are available also for purposes of charge, assessment, collection and recovery of super tax. More than that it is not possible to read the section. 32. S.58 must have its natural meaning namely, that all provisions by way of procedure and otherwise which are available regarding the charge, assessment, collection and levy of agricultural income-tax are available also for purposes of charge, assessment, collection and recovery of super tax. More than that it is not possible to read the section. 32. So far as I could see, there is no indication in the statute that the legislature intended, also to give a further benefit by way of a concessional rate of assessment regarding the levy of super tax, even for the persons dealt with and mentioned in S.3(3) of the Act. That is a special concession and that must be limited only for the purposes of levy and assessment at the particular rate mentioned therein for the purposes of agricultural income-tax alone. The sections dealing with super tax are separate and have to be dealt with separately from the provisions dealing with agricultural income-tax. Unless there is a further indication to show that this concession under S.3(3) was intended by the Legislature even for those persons in regard to super tax, I cannot accept the contention of Mr. V.K.K. Menon that the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chittur Ex. P3 levying super tax on the petitioner-tarwad is either illegal or without jurisdiction. 33. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Dismissed.