Judgment :- 1. This is the 4th time that the petitioners in this petition have come before this Court in relation to the assessments to Agricultural Income-tax on them under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the two years 1958-59 and 1959-60. On the first occasion by judgment in O.P. Nos. 701 and 923 of 1961 Vaidialingam, J. allowed the original petitions 701 and 923 of 1961 and set aside the assessment orders. The subsequent assessment orders made for the years were set aside by Mathew J. by judgment in O.P. No. 889 of 1963. Thereafter Exts. P1 and P2 assessment orders were passed for the two years and those orders were set aside by one of us by judgment in O.P. No. 2067 of 1965 on the ground that the assessments were made beyond the period provided by sub-s. (2) of S.35 of the Act and that the second proviso to that sub-section did not apply. S.35(2) was introduced into the Act by Act 12 of 1964 with effect from 14 58. We shall extract S.35(1) without its provisos and sub-s. (2) of S.35 with the second proviso. "35(1). If for any reason agricultural income chargeable to tax under this Act has escaped assessment in any financial year or has been assessed at too low a rate, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer may, at any time within three years, of the end of that year serve on the person liable to pay the tax or in the case of a company on the principal officer thereof a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub s. (2) of S.17 and may proceed to assessor reassess such income and the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section. (2) No order of assessment under S.18 or of assessment or reassessment under sub-s. (1) of this section shall be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the year in which the agricultural income was first assessable-Provided further that nothing contained in this section limiting the time within which any action may be taken or any order, assessment or reassessment may be made shall apply to a reassessment made under S.19 or to an assessment or reassessment made in consequence of, or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in, an order under S.31, S.32 S.34 or SM." 2. The assessments that have been made against the petitioner were not after the issue of notice under S, 35(1) and were not assessments or reassessments made under S.35(1) as contemplated by that sub-section. The assessments were under S.18 of the Act. Even so sub-s. (2) of S.35 would apply because the period of three years provided by that sub-section applied, as is stated clearly in the section, to assessments under S.18 as well. The only question that arose for decision in O.P. No. 2067 of 1965 (judgment is Ext. P3) was whether the second proviso to sub-s.(2) of S.35 would save the assessment orders, impugned by that petition, namely Exts. P1 and P2 here. It was held that the proviso will not apply to cases where the assessments were not made pursuant to directions "in consequence of, or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in, an order under S.31, S.32, S.34 or S.60". An assessment made pursuant to a direction contained in the judgment in O.P. No. 889 of 1963 cannot fall under the proviso and therefore the extension must be within three years of the close of the year of assessments. The orders of assessments having been made beyond that period were set aside. 3. By Act 15 of 1970 certain amendments have been introduced and we are concerned with the amendments to the second proviso to S.35(2) as also S.8 of the Validating Act. By the amendment to the second proviso to sub-s. (2) of S.35 the words "an order or decision of any court" were added to the words "an order under S.31, or S.32, or S.34 or S.60". At the time O P, No. 2067 was decided this amendment had not been effected. By the amendment to the second proviso to sub-s. (2) of S.35 the words "an order or decision of any court" were added to the words "an order under S.31, or S.32, or S.34 or S.60". At the time O P, No. 2067 was decided this amendment had not been effected. If this amendment was in force at that time it could have been contended that the second proviso to S.35(2) will apply and the assessments were valid. Though the amendments have been made with retrospective effect and therefore it must be deemed that the proviso as amended was in force at the time the judgment was pronounced, the effect of the setting aside of the assessment orders by the judgment cannot be negatived unless there be statutory provision saving the assessment orders notwithstanding the setting aside of the assessment orders by judgment of this Court. Counsel for the Revenue contends that S.8 contains this validating provision and we hare to examine whether this section so validates Exts. P1 and P2 orders notwithstanding the judgment in OP. No. 2067/65 setting them aside. The relevant part of S.8 (1) of Act 15 of 1970 is in these terms: "8. (1). Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal other authority to the contrary, any assessment or reassessment of agricultural income made or purporting to have been made under S.35 of the principal Act be for; the 27th day of April. 1970, shall be deemed to be as valid and effective as if such assessment or reassessment had been made under the said section as amended by this Act, and accordingly..." 4. Counsel for the Revenue would contend that the words "any assessment or reassessment of agricultural income made or purporting to have been made under S.35 of the principal Act before the 27th day of April, 1970 applied to the orders Exts. P1 and P2 as well because those orders are also to be governed by the provisions in sub-section (2) of S.35 and the provisos to that sub-section- This argument cannot be accepted. On a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.35 it is clear that the section treats assessments or reassessments under S.35 (1) separately from assessments under S.18. While sub-section (2) of S.35 takes in both these types of assessments S.35(1) deals only with assessments under that sub-section. On a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.35 it is clear that the section treats assessments or reassessments under S.35 (1) separately from assessments under S.18. While sub-section (2) of S.35 takes in both these types of assessments S.35(1) deals only with assessments under that sub-section. The validation by sub-section (1) of S.8 is only of assessments made under S.35 (1). Exts. P1 and P2 orders were not made under S.35 (1). They were not assessment orders or reassessment orders under S.35 (1). Exts. P1 and P2 orders are those passed under S.18. That this class of orders stand on a different footing is clear from the fact that sub-section (2) of S.35 specifically mentions the assessment orders under S.18 and under S.35 separately. 5. We think therefore whatever be the intention in introducing S.8 by Act 15 of 1970 that it does not achieve the object of validating the assessment orders that have been made under S.18 and which have been set aside by a competent court in exercise of its jurisdiction. S.8 (1) not being attracted, the quashing of Exts. P1 and P2 will have to stand and the demand made for the payment of tax under those orders by Ext. P4 cannot be sustained. 6. We therefore direct that no attempt will be made to collect any tax from the petitioner pursuant to Exts P1 and P2. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. A. N. K.