CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONS which are filed challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment of Section 18 (1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act (as amended by Karnataka Act No. 14 of 1983) replacing the earlier ordinance. ( 2 ) WE may, at the outset, state that there are two kinds of petitioners before us viz. , those who are assessed as individuals under the Act and company or firm which are assessed as such, but their grievance is common. ( 3 ) SECTION 18 (1) stood as follows before amendment:"every person whose total agricultural income during the previous year exceeded the maximum. amount which is not chargeable to Agricultural Income Tax Officer so as to reach him before the first June every year as return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, setting forth his total agricultural income during the previous year. " ( 4 ) BY the amendment of Section 18 by the amendment Act 14 of 1983 (in place of 'first June every year, the words "expiry of four months from the end of the previous year") came to be substituted and a proviso added by which special provision was made in regard to filing of return in respect of certain persons whose accounting year ended after 31st March, 1982 but before the commencement of the Ordinance which was from 1-12-1982. ( 5 ) SECTION 18 (1) of the Act as amended readsas follows:-"every person whose total agricultural income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to agricultural income-tax shall furnish to the Agricultural Income Tax Officer so as to reach him before the (expiry of four months from the end of the previous year) a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth his total agricultural income during the previous year. " ( 6 ) SINCE then the provision has been further amended with which we are not concerned for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions. The prayers in the writ petitions are to strike down Section 12 of the amendment Act No. 14 and to declare that the petitioners need not file the return in accordance with the amended provision. The prayers in the writ petitions are to strike down Section 12 of the amendment Act No. 14 and to declare that the petitioners need not file the return in accordance with the amended provision. There is a prayer for writ of prohibition in some of the cases seeking to restrain the assessing authority under the Act to compel the filing of the return with reference to the amended provision. ( 7 ) IN Writ Petition Nos. 5580 to 5582/1983,6407 to 6409/1983, 6304/1983 and 7068/1983, the learned single Judge issued stay of the operation of Section 12 of the Ordinance which apparently has continued till this day. ( 8 ) MR. Sarangan, who appears for most of the petitioners and Sri Shivaram appearing for sri K. Srinivasan appearing for other petitioners in some of the writ petitions submitted that the main ground of attack was that the individual as- sessee who may derive his agricultural income from more than one source like from his own plantation by agricultural operations or being a. partner in a firm, which has agricultural income or being recipient of the divident from a company which has agricultural income and each such entity having a separate accounting year for the purpose of its operations would make it impossible for most of the individual assessees to present comprehensive returns of their income even before the commencement of the following financial year and therefore they were subjected to hardship in the light of the change in law that may come up when the following financial year brought about such change and therefore, the amendment must be struck down. ( 9 ) IT was next contended that in the case of companies a great hardship had been thrown on them because companies carrying on themselves activities of growing and manufacturing tea, levy of excise duty would be governed by the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act and that portion of the income declared under that act which did not constitute agricultural income and inasmuch as until and unless the computation of the income under the Income Tax Act was complete, agricultural income could not be ascertained and the assessing authority under the agricultural Income Tax may not postpone the assessment proceedings before the conclusion of the assessment by the Income Tax Authorities. ( 10 ) IT was also further contended that a company had been caused further hardship inasmuch as under the rules framed under the Act, a return of the assessee-company was required to be accompanied by certain documents, viz. , a copy of the Auditors' Report and a certificate in regard to profit and loss account for the period in question. In the result if the company's period of accounting was different from that of the financial year then, the audited balance sheet would not be available and return would be incomplete and under such circumstances such company would be penalised. ( 11 ) WE have carefully considered the argument sadvanced by Sri Sarangan and it is best understood if illustrated in respect of the first of the contentions with reference to the position obtaining in the manner of filing of return before and after the amendment. ( 12 ) PETITIONER in Writ Petition No. 7056/1987 admittedly has his accounting year commencing from 1-10-1982 and ending on 30-9-1983. In accordance with the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act before the amendment he has required to file his return before first June on the following financial year, as he certainly could not have filed before that financial year in which accounting year commenced. In other- words, he had nine months to present his return and in any event it would be after the financial year 1984 had commenced, when there would be certainty of the applicability of the law. As a result of amendment, period of 9 months which he was now reduced to four months and he would be required to file his return on or before 31-1-1984 by which time certainly no changes in the law was likely to be effected. It was, therefore, contended that he was exposed to the rigour of uncertainty of law and all possible penal consequences of his return not being in conformity with law that might be changed subsequently. ( 13 ) WE do not think there is any reason for such an apprehension. The expression 'financial year' under the Agricultural Income Tax Act of the State is defined under clause (k) of Section 2 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act and it is as follows:"financial year means the year beginning on the first April and ending on the 31st march next following, which is financial year in common parlance. The expression 'financial year' under the Agricultural Income Tax Act of the State is defined under clause (k) of Section 2 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act and it is as follows:"financial year means the year beginning on the first April and ending on the 31st march next following, which is financial year in common parlance. "we accept that. But in so far as the assessment is concerned having regard to Section 3 of the karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act (in short 'a. I. Act' ). The income of 12 months of the financial year or in case where the assessee made up his account on a date within the previous 12 months ending on any date other than the 31st day of March then, at the option of the assessee the year ending on the day to which his accounts had been so made up would be the period. The income accrued within such period would be taxable income under the Agricultural Income Tax act. It is so understood then what really emerges is that before the amendment persons whether a company or firm or individual covered by the agricultural Income Tax Act would be required to file their returns before first June of any parlicular year with reference to the previous 12 months ending on 31st March of that year, while others who had other accounting period contemplated under the definition of 'previous year' under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, the period wherein as pointed out in regard to Writ petition No. 7056/1986 from nine months to a shorter period. Thus an asscsscc having financial year as the accounting would gain two months. Therefore, direct effect of the amendment is, irrespective of method of accounting and the period covered for the purpose of computation of income, every asscsscc is required to present his return within four months uniformly. But in any event four months time to present the return in respect of the previous 12 months cannot be said to he unreasonably short time so as to attract interference by this Court with right to carry on trade or occupation under Article 19 of the Constitution. ( 14 ) BUT real thrust of argument by Sri Sarangan rested on possible changes in the law after return was filed and before conclusion of the assessment of such return in the succeeding financial year commencing on first April of that year. ( 14 ) BUT real thrust of argument by Sri Sarangan rested on possible changes in the law after return was filed and before conclusion of the assessment of such return in the succeeding financial year commencing on first April of that year. Further, he placed reliance upon the observations of the learned authors in regard to Section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 at page 93 of the Book, Kanga and Palkhiwala on Income tax Act, 7th Edition, Volume No. 1. "law to be applied is that in force in assessment year: Though the subject of charge is the income of previous year, the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year, unless otherwise stated or implied; and any amendment which is in force at the beginning of the relevant assessment year must be govern the case though the assessment is made after the income under assessment is earned. In other words, the income Tax Act as it stands amended on the first April of a financial year must apply to the assessment for that year. Any amendments in the Act which come into force after the first April of a financial year would not apply to the assessment for that year even if the assessment is actually made amendment of the Act, though effected after the close of the assessment year but before the assessment is made would still be given retrospective effect and would apply to the assessment if assessment is purely procedural and affects the machinery for collecting the tax rather than the tax itself. If after an assessment order is passed but pending an appeal or reference legislation with retrospective effect comes in to operation the decidingtribunul must give effect of such legislation. See anle under Section 1, retrospective legislation partial retrospective operation and retrospective effect of provision for appeal, revision or rectification pp. 6. 7. " ( 15 ) AS seen from the passage extracted by learned authors all that is culled out from the decision of the High Court and Supreme Court as to the position in regard to the law that has to be applied is physical status. Then there is some difference in the language of Section 4 of the Income Tax Act and Section 3 of the Agricultural income Tax Act. Then there is some difference in the language of Section 4 of the Income Tax Act and Section 3 of the Agricultural income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Income tax Act speaks of Central Act making changes in the rate of taxes payable under the Income tax Act and it is a matter for judicial notice that at the time of making budget proposal year by year the Government of India by fiscal laws brings about changes in various taxing statutes in regard to the liability of assessce or the person liable to pay duly either to his advantage or to his disadvantage by increasing or decreasing the rate. It is on that account learned authors have carefully stated the position of law in the passage extracted above with which we agree. The same thing may be said of Section 3 of the Agricultural income Tax Act, in that the rates prescribed in schedule to Agricultural Income Tax Act maybe altered by the State Government during the budget proposals. Then in such an event, two things are possible if assessment is completed as in the case of Writ Petition No. 7056/1983 soon after he has filed his return on 31-1-1984 then it is the law enacted by ther State as on 1-11-1983 that is applicable. If the assessment is not concluded and changes arc brought about on 1-4-1984 then that law would be applicable to the 'previous year' in which event worst that may happen is that the authority may reopen under the relevant provision of the Act and apply the law that will be in force. In deciding which law is applicable on the facts of each case, ultimately this Court or the Supreme Court has to have the last word. Therefore, if any difficulty arises that itself cannot be said to be a ground for striking down legislation which as pointed out earlier is to bring about uniformity in filing of return irrespective of the period of accounting. We must, therefore, reject that contention as no undue hardship or undue restriction would be caused or imposed on the assessee. ( 16 ) IN case of a Tea Company our attention was drawn to the passage from Kanga and palkhiwala (7th Edition, Volume No. 1 at page 78) in respect of the previous year defined under section 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ( 16 ) IN case of a Tea Company our attention was drawn to the passage from Kanga and palkhiwala (7th Edition, Volume No. 1 at page 78) in respect of the previous year defined under section 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That passage is as follows:-"sub-SECTION (3) different previous years: an assessee is entitled to have different previous years in respect of separate sources of his income even under the same head. For instance an assessee may have as his 'previous year' the financial year for one business and the Tamil year for another business 'source' means not a legal concept but something which a practical may would regard as a real source of income. Each branch of a business is a separate source. An assessee having a head office and branch offices may have two previous years "one for the head office and one must for the branches but in his assessment he must add the results of the two each year and make his return on this basis. He cannot accumulate the results of the head office. The principle is that where an assessee has different previous years in respect of separate source of income, the income of the varying previous years from the different sources should be lumped together to arrive at the total income. The provisions of this section make it clear that except in cases where a previous year is determined by the board or other authority under sub-section (i) (c) the varying previous years must all necessarily and with or within the financial year next preceding the assessment year. " ( 17 ) WITH referrnce to sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act the above observation is made. But if the passage is read as a whole and properly understood, it only means no more than that assessee may have his income from various sources which in turn may have different accounting periods not being the financial year or the assessment year under the Income Tax Act. In the Income Tax Act word 'assessment year' is defined to mean: the year following the previous 12 months and read with Section 3 which really means the year proceeding 12 months from which financial year commences. In the Income Tax Act word 'assessment year' is defined to mean: the year following the previous 12 months and read with Section 3 which really means the year proceeding 12 months from which financial year commences. Therefore, the passage must be understood to refer to an assessee who discloses his income and files his return according to his accounting period and have receipts covered by his accounting period. ( 18 ) THEREFORE, it is of no assistance to the petitioner on that basis to contend that any hardship is caused to disclose whatever has been received in the 12 months preceding the closure of his account. ( 19 ) IN regard to the Tea Company, it has been declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, kerala, ITR 1968 Volume 69 p. 667. Agricultural income Tax Officer shall not have jurisdiction to complete the assessment of a return of agricultural Income Tax Assessee if it is a Tea company unless that Tea Company's assessment is cleared for the relevant period under the Income tax Act. The passage relied upon by the learned Author is as follows:"the agricultural income taxable under the kerala Act is 60 per cent of the income so computed after deducting therefrom the allowances authorised by Section 5 of the kerala Act in so far as the same has not been allowed in the assessment under the central Income Tax Act. There is no provision in the Kerala Act or the rules made thereunder authorising the Agricultural income Tax Officer is disregard the computation of the tea income made by the income Tax Authorities acting under the central Income Tax Act. If before the agricultural Income Tax Officer proceeds to make the assessment under the Kerala act, an assessment of income by the Income tax Officer under Rule 24 of the Income tax Rules, 1922 or Rule 8 of the Income tax Rules, 1962 has been made then the agricultural Income Tax Officer acting under the Kerala Act is bound to accept the computation of the tea income already made by the Central Income Tax authorities and to assess only 69 per cent of the income so computed less allowable deductions as agricultural income taxable under the kerala Act. "if that is the correct position enunciated by the Supreme Court then it is binding on the authorities under the Agricultural Income Tax act to await the completion of the assessment under the Income Tax Act in respect of the Tea co. and thereafter proceed to assess the agricultural income of such Tea Company. ( 20 ) WE do not see any ground for striking down the amendment because Tea Company stands on a different footing. If it has received benefit of separate treatment distinguishing it from others by protection of law then it stands protected. It cannot be said to be aggrieved by the amendment and therefore it cannot claim any special benefit by challenging the amendment. ( 21 ) SIMILARLY in regard to the argument advanced that it requires certificate, balance sheet etc. , we do not see any impediment contemplated by the Act and the rules thereunder. Whenever a company files its return it should be accompanied by an Audit Report and it docs not say the same should be accompanied by a balance sheet or the company's profit and loss account as approved and adopted at its Annual General body Meeting. ( 22 ) EVERY Company, as pointed out, has to submit its return along with audited report for the period ending with the closure of the accounts. We do not think any extraordinary hardship would be caused to the petitioners as contended and it should not drive us to strike down the amendment which, as we have already discussed is to bring about the same degree of uniformity in the matter time to file returns. Companies may get the audit report and profit and loss account for the accounting period. Such an exercise cannot be said to be a hardship. ( 23 ) THEREFORE, we arc convinced that the petitioners who arc really not aggrieved by the amendment cannot challenge its constitutional validity. ( 24 ) FOR the reasons afore said, we dismissall these writ petitions. Under the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Writ Petitions dismissed. --- *** --- .