CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions two assessees have assailed the validity of second proviso to rule 9 (c) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income tax Rules, 1957, as ultra vires of the Act, viz. , the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957 (in short the 'act')- They have further prayed for quashing of Annexures - E to L to the petitions which are comprised of assessment order or re-assessment order under Section 36 of the Act accompanied by the demand in accordance with such order. ( 2 ) IT sufficies for us to state that in the case of B. D. Basavaraj - petitioner in W. P. Nos. 10945 to 10947 of 1982, the assessment years in question are 1976-77 to 1979-80 and in the case of B. D. Vishwanath - petitioner in W. P. Nos. 10948 to 10951 of 1982, the assessment years are 1976-77 to 1980-81. ( 3 ) IN the course of the arguments before us the learned Counsel Sri Shivaram has not pressed his challenge to the validity of Rule 9 (c) as the same has already been upheld to be valid by this court in E. M. V. Muthappan v Agricultural Income tax Officer, ILR 1989 Karnataka 3517. Therefore, what remains for our consideration is whether the assessment orders assailed on the ground that the assessment orders and the consequent demand notices suffer from want of jurisdiction inasmuch as notice required to be issued under Section 36 of the Act was not in conformity with that Section as it is not a notice under Section 18 (2) of the Act and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated and the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. ( 4 ) RELIANCE was placed on a decision of this Court in almost similar circumstances in the case of C. T. Rajagopal v State of Mysore, (1972)86 i. T. R. 814, wherein it was held that the issue of a notice under Section 36 of the Act requiring the assessee to furnish a return within a stated period was a condition precedent to the validity of the assessment on agricultural income which had escaped assessment or had been under-assessed and if no such notice was issued or if the notice was invalid, the assessment was bad in law. In the instant case while a notice undisputedly was issued proposing to reopen the assessment, no fresh return was called for in accordance with the provisions made under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. ( 5 ) SECTION 36 reads as follows:"36. Income escaping assessment.- If for any reason any 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 five 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-section (2) of Section 18 and may proceed to assess or re-assess 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 subsection: provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been charged if such income had not escaped assessment or full assessment, as the case may be: provided further that in computing the period of limitation for assessment or reassessment under this section, the time during which the assessment has been deferred on account of any stay order granted by any Court or other authority in any case or by reason of the fact that an appeal or other proceeding is pending before the High Court or the Supreme court, shall be excluded: provided also that nothing contained in this section limiting the time within which any action may be taken or any order, assessment or re-assessment may be made, shall apply to as assessment or re-assessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding, direction or order made under Section 32, 32a, 33, 34, 35 or 55 or any judgment, or Order made by the Supreme Court, the High Court or any other Court. " ( 6 ) FROM the reading of the said section itis imperative that the proceedings to be commenced under Section 36 must be preceded by issuance of a notice under Section 18 (2) of the act notwithstanding the fact that some proceedings initiated under Section 36 may not ipso facto require a fresh return. On careful reading of the section at first we were under the impression that certain category of cases may not require the need for a fresh return like in the case of an assessee being taxed at a lower rate than what was really applicable. Therefore, we called upon the learned Counsel to explain the legal principle behind the decision of the Division Bench of this court to which we have referred to earlier in the course of this order. In that behalf number of citations were cited, but in none of them, we regret to say, any principle underlying the mandatory need to call for a fresh return has been explained except in the decision of V. Jagan-mohan rao and Others v Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax, andhra Pradesh, (1970)75 I. T. R. 373. Ramaswami, J. , as he then was speaking for the Bench consisting of Acting chief Justice J. C. Shah, himself and Justice A. N. Grover held, the need for a fresh return in all cases covered by Section 34 of the Income Tax act (which is in pari materia of Section 36 of the act) observed as follows:"section 34 in terms states that once the Income tax Officer decides to reopen the assessment he could do so within the period prescribed by serving on the person liable to pay tax a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under Section 22 (2) and may proceed to assess or re-assess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 22 the previous wider-assessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under Section 34 (l) (b), the Income tax Officer had not only the j urisdiction but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during that year. When once valid proceedings are started under Section 34 (l) (b), the Income tax Officer had not only the j urisdiction but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during that year. " (emphasis supplied by us) ( 7 ) ON the facts of these cases before us no notice calling upon the assessees for a fresh return was ever issued though a notice for reassessment was issued. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act is similar to sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the 1972 Income Tax Act since repealed. Therefore, in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court, moment re-assessment proceedings are initiated by issuance of a notice then earlier assessment order becomes non-est in the eye of law and therefore what actually commences is a fresh proceeding and as such the mandatory requirement for a fresh return has to be called for. If such a fresh return was not called for in conformity with subsection (2) of Section 18 as mandated in Section 36 of the acquire jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment because the earlier assessment orders remained in tact. ( 8 ) IT is in that view, for want of jurisdiction, we must set aside the impugned orders and demand notices as at Annexurcs-E to L and remand the matter to the respondent-Agricultural income Tax Officer, Hassan, to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with law, if such proceedings are not barred by time specified in Section 36 of the Act. ( 9 ) WRIT Petitions are allowed in terms above and rule issued earlier is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .