JUDGMENT J. Sahai, J. - This special appeal by the State of U.P. and the Assessing Authority is directed against the judgment of S.C. Manchanda, J., dated October 4, 1962, allowing writ petition no. 1982 of 1962 filed by the respondent Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. 2. The respondent Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur, was formed on 25th September 1957 by the amalgamation of the Raza Sugar Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Raza Ltd.) and the Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Buland Ltd.). The Raza Ltd. and the Buland Ltd. were incorporated under the Rampur State Companies Act, 1932. Messrs. Govan Brothers (Rampur) Ltd. were the common managing agents of the two companies. On 10th May 1933 the Raza Ltd. and on 11th December 1934 the Buland Ltd. entered into agreements with the erstwhile State of Rampur, one of the terms of which was that the Rampur State should grant to those companies leases of agricultural land with adequate irrigation facilities, suitable for the cultivation of sugarcane. The companies were required to pay fair and equitable land revenue, which was to be agreed upon by the companies and the Rampur State. The State had the right to revise the land revenue every 30 years. On 5th May, 1935, a partnership deed was executed by the Raza Ltd. and the Buland Ltd., constituting a partnership firm of the two companies in equal shares known as the Agricultural Company Rampur. It was agreed between the two companies that the Agricultural Company would be a separate concern and was to develop agricultural lands to be leased out to the Raza Ltd. and the Buland Ltd. by the Rampur State under the agreements mentioned above. Until 1939 the Rampur State did not grant any lease of agricultural land. However, in that year it leased 2000 acres of land and in 1946 another 2000 acres of land to the Agricultural Company Rampur. It may be mentioned here that the erstwhile State of Rampur had agreed to exempt the Raza Ltd. and the Buland Ltd. from all taxes for a period of fifteen years from the date of commencement of their business. The State of Rampur acceded to the Union of India in July 1949 and was merged with Uttar Pradesh with eject from 1-12-1949. The State of Rampur acceded to the Union of India in July 1949 and was merged with Uttar Pradesh with eject from 1-12-1949. The Union of India recognised the aforesaid concession given to the two companies by the State of Rampur. 3. On 1st of July 1950 the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was applied to the areas which formed part of the erstwhile State of Rampur. The Assessing Authority issued notices under Sec. 16(4) of the Act to the Raza Ltd. and the Buland Ltd. for furnishing returns of their agricultural incomes for the year 1357F. to 1361F., but no such notice was issued to the Agricultural Company under Sec. 15 of the Act. The Raza Ltd. and the Buland Ltd. submitted their returns, but stated that they were partners of the Agricultural Company with a half share each. The Assessing Authority, however, assessed the two companies to agricultural income tax for the years mentioned above by means of the two assessment orders, that is, one for each company. The companies appealed to the Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, and also filed writ petition no. 2385 of 1959 in this Court challenging the aforesaid assessment orders. That writ petition was allowed on 17th April 1961, the assessments made were quashed and the Assessing Authority was directed to make fresh assessments. It was observed that the questions that would be necessary for determination were: "firstly, as to what laws for assessing land revenue on the land and for making the land subject to local rates were in force in these areas during these relevant years and the second point to be determined would be whether under these laws any land revenue was assessed on these lands or whether the lairds were subject to any local rates collected by the officers of the Government as such." The Commissioner also allowed the appeals of the companies and directed the Assessing Authority to make fresh assessments, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in its judgment dated 17th April, 1961, allowing writ petition no. 2385 of 1959. 4. 2385 of 1959. 4. When the Assessing Authority started fresh hearings as a consequence of the judgment of this Court dated 17th April 1961 and that of the Commissioner allowing the appeals, an objection was raised with regard to the assessability of the two companies on the ground that no notice had been sent to the Agricultural Company Rampur. The Assessing Authority, however, again assessed the Raza Ltd. and the Buland Ltd. for the year 1357F. to 1361F. and also for 1362F. and 1363F. With regard to the objection of the Raza Ltd. and the Buland Ltd., that inasmuch as no proceedings had been taken for assessing the firm, the Agricultural Company, the aforesaid companies, which were partners in the said firm, could not be assessed, the Assessing Authority observed as follows : "The next point which was raised was that the A. I. Tax should be assessed on the agricultural company of which Raza Sugar Co. and Buland Sugar Co. are said to be partners. It was argued on behalf of the assessee that the assessment in this case has to be made under Sec. 2(11) of the A. I. T. Act. Here, I have to observe that from the very initial stages, returns have been filed by Raza and Buland Co. and all the proceedings have been directed towards the assessment of A. I. T. on them. There has not been any mention of the Agricultural Co. and its introduction at this stage will in no way be proper." 5. The Assessing Authority, finding that the two companies, the Raza Ltd. and Buland Ltd., were being managed by a common agency and their shares were half each, concluded: - "In their case, their interests have not been so merged that their shares could not be determined. Even in the returns filed by them their shares have been shown separately. Assessment, therefore, will have to be made separately for each company and the aggregate will be payable by the joint agency of Raza and Buland Sugar Companies." 6. To challenge the assessment order mentioned above the Raza Buland Sugar Company Ltd. filed writ petition no. 1982 of 1962 and prayed for the quashing of the assessment order dated 29-6-1962 made by the Assessing Authority against Raza Ltd. and Buland Limited for the assessment year 1357F. to 1363F. To challenge the assessment order mentioned above the Raza Buland Sugar Company Ltd. filed writ petition no. 1982 of 1962 and prayed for the quashing of the assessment order dated 29-6-1962 made by the Assessing Authority against Raza Ltd. and Buland Limited for the assessment year 1357F. to 1363F. A writ or mandamus was also sought to restrain the respondents from realizing the tax from the petitioner. Several submissions were made before Manchanda, J. in the course of the arguments before him. On 4-10-1962 Manchanda, J. allowed the writ petition, resting his judgment on the ground that the Assessing Authority committed a patent error of law in assessing the two partners of Agricultural Company and in not assessing the firm as such." He recorded the following findings :- (1) A firm is a person within the meaning of the Act. (2) If the person happens to be "a firm then manifestly the tax is assessed on the firm as such and not on the partners thereof." (3) In the instant case the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Act, which in certain cases permitted the levy of the tax on the share income in the hands of the partners, were not applicable because of the non-compliance of the conditions precedent the non-compliance appearing from the circumstances (a) that there was nothing on the record to indicate that the assessing authority was satisfied that the control of the firm or association was in the hands of one member thereof and that "the firm has been formed or is being used for the purpose of evading or reducing the liability to tax any member thereof."; and (b) that he failed to pass an order stating that "the sum payable as tax by the firm shall not he determined and that the share of each member in the agricultural income of the firm shall be included in his total agricultural income for the purposes of the assessment." 7. Mr. Raja Ram Agarwala, learned Junior Standing Counsel has made the following three submissions in this special appeal:- (1) That the view of Manchanda, J., that assessment could be made only on the Agricultural Company and not on its partners i.e. the Raza Ltd. and the Buland Limited is erroneous. Mr. Raja Ram Agarwala, learned Junior Standing Counsel has made the following three submissions in this special appeal:- (1) That the view of Manchanda, J., that assessment could be made only on the Agricultural Company and not on its partners i.e. the Raza Ltd. and the Buland Limited is erroneous. (2) That inasmuch as the Act provided for an appeal which the petitioner-respondents have not availed themselves of, their application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have been entertained. (3) That inasmuch as originally the Raza Ltd. and the Buland Ltd. did not in their returns specifically take the ground that they could not be assessed and that it was the Agricultural Company alone which was liable to assessment, the matter had become res-judicata. No other submission was made by the learned Junior Standing Counsel. We will consider the submissions of the learned counsel serially. (1) Section 3 of the Act reads: "3. Agricultural income-tax and super-tax at the rate or rates specified in the schedule shall be charged for each year 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." (Italicised by us). 8. Section 2(11) of the Act defines the word person as follows : `person' means an individual or association or individuals, owning or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for that of another, either as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity recognised by law, and includes an undivided Hindu family, firm or company but does not include a local authority." It would be noticed that unlike the definition of the word person in the Indian Income Tax, the one in the Act is exhaustive and not inclusive. Sec. 2, clause 31, of the Indian Income Tax reads: " person includes- (i) an individual, (ii) a Hindu undivided family, (iii) a company, (iv) a firm, (v) an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, (vi) a local authority, and (vii) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses;" 9. Sec. 2, clause 31, of the Indian Income Tax reads: " person includes- (i) an individual, (ii) a Hindu undivided family, (iii) a company, (iv) a firm, (v) an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, (vi) a local authority, and (vii) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses;" 9. It would be noticed that whereas Sec. 2(31) of the Indian Income Tax uses the word includes Sec. 2(11) of the Act uses the word means. 10. It is clear from the definition of the word person in the Act that even a firm is a person. Consequently, a firm is a person within the meaning of Sec. 3 of the Act. Sec. 2(9) of the Act defines a firm as an association of persons under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 11. From what we have said above it is clear that the Agricultural Company, being a firm, was a person for the purposes of the Act and was liable to be charged agricultural income tax. 12. The only exception to the general rule of the firm being taxed is contained in Sec. 18 of the Act, which so far as relevant for our purposes reads: "Power to assess individual members of certain firms, associations and companies.- (1) Where the assessing authority is satisfied that any firm or other association of individuals carrying on any business other than a joint Hindu family, is under the control of one member thereof and that such firm or association has been formed or is being used for the purpose of evading or reducing the liability to agricultural income-tax of any member thereof, he may, or if he is an Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division with the previous approval of the Collector of the district concerned, pass an order that the sum payable as agricultural income-tax by the firm or association shall not be determined, and thereupon the shares of each member in the agricultural income of the firm or association shall be included in his total agricultural income for the purpose of his assessment thereon." 13. A perusal of the aforesaid section reveals that it is only in the circumstances enumerated in that section that an assessing authority can order that the sum payable as agricultural income tax by the firm or association shall not be determined and the share of each member in the agricultural income of the firm or association shall be included in his total agricultural income for the purpose of assessing his income-tax thereon. 14. As was pointed out by Manchanda, J., neither of the two conditions precedent for passing an order under Sec. 18 of the Act had been satisfied in the present case. There is nothing to indicate that the assessing authority was satisfied that the agricultural company was under the control of one member thereof and that the said agricultural company had been formed or was being used for the purposes of evading tax or reducing the liability of the tax of any member thereof. That being the position, it is clear that Sec. 18 of the Act is not applicable and that the assessing authority could not have proceeded to assess the Raza Ltd. and the Buland Ltd., bypassing the firm, the agricultural company of which they were partners. 15. J.C. Thakkar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Bombay (55), 27 ITR 658. which was cited by the learned Junior Standing Counsel, in our opinion, is clearly distinguishable. In that case it was held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that the assessment on the partners of an unregistered firm was not prohibited by the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. We have already pointed out that the definition of person in the Act is exhaustive, whereas the definition of that word in the Indian Income lax, 1922 is inclusive. Besides, in the Indian Income-tax Act there is no provision analogous to Sec. 18 of the Act. Sec. 18 of the Act exhausts the extent to which and the circumstances under which the rule that the firm and not the partners shall be assessed to Agricultural income Tax can be ignored. Our conclusion that Sec. 18 of the Act is exhaustive with regard to the circumstances in which the partners can be taxed finds support from Ganga Saran v. Firm Ram Charan, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 9. and The Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukund Lal Saraf, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 135. Our conclusion that Sec. 18 of the Act is exhaustive with regard to the circumstances in which the partners can be taxed finds support from Ganga Saran v. Firm Ram Charan, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 9. and The Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukund Lal Saraf, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 135. In the latter case it was observed by the Supreme Court:" ... .It must be held also that to the extent that Indian Contract Act deals with a particular subject, it is exhaustive upon the same and it is not permissible to import the principles of English law de hors these statutory provisions." 16. For the reasons given above we are of opinion that mere is no merit in the first submission of the learned Junior Standing Counsel. (2) It is true that the Act provides a departmental appeal and the petitioner-respondents could have filed one. But the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Besides, for the issue of a writ of certiorari the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar. See State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 87. In the present case, as shown earlier, certiorari has been prayed for. 17. Besides, it was a matter within the discretion of Manchanda, J., to exercise or not to exercise the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was founded upon the ground that the entire proceedings were illegal and void. Inasmuch as Manchanda, J. decided to entertain the writ petition, we see no reason to interfere, especially when we are ourselves of the opinion that the ground urged was one which could properly be decided in a writ petition. The question whether or not a writ petition should be entertained is normally to be decided at the time when it comes for admission and not at the appellate stage. We, therefore, overrule the second submission of the learned Junior Standing Counsel. (3) We find no merits to the third submission also of Sri Raja Ram Agarwala, learned Junior Standing Counsel. We, therefore, overrule the second submission of the learned Junior Standing Counsel. (3) We find no merits to the third submission also of Sri Raja Ram Agarwala, learned Junior Standing Counsel. From the very beginning of the assessment proceedings, i.e., even before the earlier writ petition was filed in this Court, a definite stand had been taken by the Raza Ltd. and the Buland Ltd. that they were the partners of the Agricultural Company. Notwithstanding this objection the assessing authority, instead of assessing the Agricultural Company, assessed the Raza Ltd. and Buland Ltd. This led to the filing of the earlier writ petition and as already pointed out earlier, this Court quashed the assessment order and directed the assessing authority to start fresh proceedings for the assessment of the tax. Under these circumstances no question of res judicata arises. In our opinion the third submission of Sri Raja Ram is also without merit. 18. The result is that we dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed.