Judgment :- 1. The vires of R.10(a) of the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Revision of Assessment Rules, 1965 is questioned in this Original Petition. The petitioner's father who was an assessee to plantation tax under the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960, for short the Act, was issued Ext. P-1 notice under S.3(3) for the revision of his assessment for the period 1965-66 to 1969-70. The petitioner's father did not file any objections to Ext. P-1 notice and hence he was assessed to plantation tax on the basis of Ext. P-1 notice and Ext. P-2 notice of demand was issued to him on 29121969. As a matter of fact the petitioner's father was having only an extent of 6-01 acres of" plantations when he received Ext. P-1 notice even though the extent he was originally having was 42-21 acres. Against the assessment the petitioner's father filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam. But the same was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the ground that the petitioner's father did not file any objections to Ext. P-1 notice issued under S.3(3) of the Act. Against the appellate order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner filed Ext. P-3 revision before the 3rd respondent, the Board of Revenue, Trivandrum, as the petitioner's father left this world by that time. But the 3rd respondent, the Board of Revenue by Ext. P-4 proceedings dismissed Ext. P-3 revision on the ground that no appeal will lie against the assessment in question and hence the order of the appellate authority does not call for any interference. The petitioner questions Ext. P-2 and Ext. P-4 in this Original Petition over and above the challenge against R.10(a) of the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Revision of Assessment Rules, 1965, for short, the rules. 2. hri. Jimmy John, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent, the Board of Revenue has gone wrong in holding that no appeal will lie against the assessment in question which was one under S.3(3) of the Act. Learned counsel refers to S.9 of the Act which deals with appeal against assessment etc. S.9(1) reads: "9. 2. hri. Jimmy John, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent, the Board of Revenue has gone wrong in holding that no appeal will lie against the assessment in question which was one under S.3(3) of the Act. Learned counsel refers to S.9 of the Act which deals with appeal against assessment etc. S.9(1) reads: "9. Appeal against assessment etc.-(1) Any assessee objecting to the extent of plantation or the amount of plantation tax assessed under S.5 or S.6A or denying his liability to be assessed under this Act or objecting to any order of the assessing authority under this Act may appeal to the appellate authority against the assessment or against such order. Provided that no appeal shall lie in respect of an assessment made under sub-section (4) of S.5 or under S.6" According to the learned counsel an appeal shall lie against assessment except assessments made under S.5 (4) and S.6 of the Act. Learned counsel points out that this is a case where the petitioner denies the liability to be assessed under the Act and hence irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner's father filed any objections to Ext. P1 notice under S.3 (3) of the Act, as appeal will lie against the order of assessment Learned counsel then refers to R.5 (a) and 10 (a) of the Rules, which read: "5. (a) If the assessee files no objections or produces no evidence in response to the notice under R.4, within the time specified in the notice the assessing authority shall straightaway assess the party to Plantation Tax on the basis of the revised extent." "10. (a) An appeal against the decision or orders of an assessing authority shall lie to the appellate authority appointed by the Government by notification issued under subsection (2) of S.2 of the Act: Provided however that no appeal shall lie against an assessment order passed under sub-rule 5 (a)" According to the learned counsel, the proviso to R.10 (a) which bars an appeal against the assessment order passed under R.5 (a) irrespective of the fact whether the assessment order is under S.5 (4), S.6 or under any other provisions of the Act, is ultra vires of S.9 (1) of the Act. Learned Government Pleader contends that in a case where the assessee does not file objections to the notice under S.3 (3), there will be no appeal as the assessee has no objection to the data given is the notice. According to the learned Government Pleader the proviso to R.10 (a) is perfectly legal and valid and hence the appellate authority and the third respondent, the Board of Revenue who disposed of Ext. P-3 revision are perfectly right in holding that no appeal would He, in this case. 3. Shri. Jimmy John is well founded in his contention. Under S.9 (1) of the Act an appeal is barred only in respect of assessments under S.5 (4) and 6 of the Act. But as per the proviso to R.10 (a) of the Rules an appeal against an assessment under R.5 (a) also is barred. So against an assessment other than those mentioned in the proviso to S.9 (1) also an appeal is barred by the proviso to R.10 (a) of the Rules. In this case admittedly the assessment was under S.3 (3) of the Act and was not under S.5 (4) of the Act. - As per R.5 (a) if as assessee does not file his objections to the notice issued under R.4 for revising the extent of his plantations under S.3 (3) of the Act, an assessment can be made. As the proviso to R.10 (a) of the Rules bars an appeal against an assessment under S 3 (3) of the Act also, to that extent the proviso is ultra vires of S.9 (1) of the Act So it goes without saying that against an assessment under S.3 (3) of the Act an appeal will lie under S.9 of the Act. Proviso to S.10 (a) of the Rules to the extent that it bars appeals against assessments other than those under S.5 (4) and 6 of the Act is declared as ultra vires of S.9 (1) of the Act. Ext. P4 is set aside. The third respondent, the Board of Revenue is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext. P3 revision. The Original Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. . Allowed.