Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has been assessed to income tax for the assessment year 1960-61. The tax imposed for the year on him is Rs. 3,696/-. Demand was made for the payment of this tax and for non-payment of the tax penalty was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner had appealed from the order of assessment and had made infructuous attempts before the Income Tax Officer and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to get him treated as a non-defaulter pursuant to application made under S.220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is averred in the affidavit in support of the petition that the Income Tax Officer rejected his prayer though time was granted for a week by order dated 28-10-1963. Even this order was passed it appears, only after the petitioner had approached the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner passed an order Ext. P-1 which reads as follows: "With reference to the above, please contact the Income Tax Officer, Cannanore" Contacting the Income Tax Officer did not improve the position of the petitioner for by Ext. P-2 order a further penalty of Rs. 924/- has been imposed on him. This was on 13-2-1964 and it is this order that is impugned in this writ application. 2. It is contended by counsel on behalf of the petitioner that in passing Ext. P-2 order the respondent has not even tried to comply with the principles of natural justice. He also invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court and contended that the foundation for the imposition of penalty in this case, the assessment order, has been set aside by me in my judgment in O.P. No. 345 of 1964 and that therefore the demand made pursuant to the original order of assessment and the penalty imposed for non-compliance with the demand have also ceased to be. Reliance has been placed for this contention on the observations of Mr. Justice Sarkar in the decision in Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle, Kolar and another v. Seghu Buchiah Setty (AIR. 1964 S.C.1473). This is what Their Lordships observed dealing with the question as to whether proceedings can be continued pursuant to demand made on the basis of an assessment order which had been set aside in appeal. Justice Sarkar in the decision in Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle, Kolar and another v. Seghu Buchiah Setty (AIR. 1964 S.C.1473). This is what Their Lordships observed dealing with the question as to whether proceedings can be continued pursuant to demand made on the basis of an assessment order which had been set aside in appeal. "If the effect of an appellate order reducing the assessment as in the present case did not wipe out the original order, a most anomalous situation would, in any view, arise. Under S.46(1) of the Act after a default has been committed in terms of S.45(1) the Income-tax Officer may impose a penalty not exceeding the amount of the tax due in respect of which the default has occurred. This penalty may be recovered in the same way as the tax due, that is to say, by a notice under S.29 and thereafter by a certificate issued under S.46(2). Now suppose the penalty for the full amount of the tax found due by the Income-tax Officer has been imposed and thereafter the appellate order reduces the amount of the tax. What happens to the order of penalty then? Obviously it does not automatically stand reduced to the reduced amount of the tax. It would again be absurd if the penalty could be recovered for the full original amount. The only sensible view to take in such a case would be that the order of penalty falls to the ground and the only logical way to support that conclusion would be to say that the original default has disappeared". So counsel on behalf of the petitioner urges that the original default has disappeared and that I must hold that Ext. P-2 has fallen to the ground as the original default has disappeared. Perhaps that would have been the position but for the fact that the legislature has stepped in and has made provisions for validating orders such as Ext. P2. The provision is contained in S.3(1)(c) of the Taxation Laws (Continuation And Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 which reads as follows: "3(1). Perhaps that would have been the position but for the fact that the legislature has stepped in and has made provisions for validating orders such as Ext. P2. The provision is contained in S.3(1)(c) of the Taxation Laws (Continuation And Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 which reads as follows: "3(1). Where any notice of demand in respect of any Government dues is served upon an assessee by a Taxing Authority under any scheduled Act, and any appeal or other proceeding is filed or taken in respect of such Government dues, then, (c) no proceedings in relation as to such Government dues (including the imposition of penalty or charging of interest) shall be invalid by reason only that no fresh notice of demand was served upon the assessee after the disposal of such appeal or proceeding or that such Government dues have been enhanced or reduced in such appeal or proceedings." I have omitted the provisos to the clause because it appears to me, they are unnecessary for this case. 'Such appeal or proceeding' is what is referred to in S.3(1) of the above Act and it relates to steps taken by way of any appeal or other proceeding in respect of such Government dues. I think that 'the proceeding' therein will also take in proceedings for the issuance of a writ under Art.226 of the Constitution. In that view, I feel no doubt that clause (c) of sub-section (1) of S.3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 saves the validity of the order Ext. P-2 impugned in this writ application. Ext. P-2 cannot therefore be impugned. I may add that no point has been taken before me regarding the validity of the above Act. 3. I dismiss this writ application but make no order as to costs. Dismissed.