Judgment :- The Manager of the petitioner firm was informed that with effect from the financial year 1987-88 he has to pay the tax at the revised rate and that it should be paid on 15th October of every year. Admittedly petitioner has to pay plantation tax under the provisions of the Kerala Plantation Tax Act 1960. In respect of the assessment year 1987-88 petitioner was assessed to pay Rs.37,044.11 by way of plantation tax. The tax was demanded at the rate of Rs.130/- per hectare. Later petitioner received Ext.P1 communication to remit plantation tax at the rate of Rs.350/- per hectare. From Ext.P1 it can be seen that for a period of three months (April to June) the demand of tax is at the rate of Rs.130/- per hectare and for the rest of the period it is at the rate of Rs.350/- per hectare. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 demand notice directing it to remit plantation tax at the rate of Rs.350/- per hectare for the period beginning from July 1987 is illegal and without jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, the demand of the tax as per Ext.P1 at the enhanced rate pursuant to the amendment of the rates of levy of tax in the Schedule to the Plantation Tax Act by virtue of the operation of the Kerala Finance Act 1987 can have effect only from 1988-89. 3. Tax is payable under S.3 of the Plantation Tax Act. S.3(1) reads: "Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act for every financial year commencing on and from the first day of April, 1960, there shall be charged in respect of the lands comprised in plantations held by a person on the corresponding valuation date a tax (hereinafter referred to as 'plantation tax') at the rates specified in Schedule I; and the person holding such plantations shall be liable to pay the plantation tax." Valuation date is defined under S.2(9). It reads: 'Valuation date in relation to the financial year commencing on the first day of April, 1960, means the first day of September, 1960, and in relation to any other financial year for which an assessment is to be made under this Act means the first day of April of that year." Relying on the definition of valuation date counsel for the petitioner submitted that financial year for which an assessment is to be made can only be from the first day of April of that year and hence claim of tax at the revised rate can only be made from the next financial year as the revision is not made retrospective. There is no case for the respondents that the revision has been made retrospective. So long as the revision of tax rate is not made retrospective respondents cannot claim it during the current financial year. Any amendment in the taxing statute which comes into force after the first day of April of a financial year cannot apply to the assessment for that year and so the respondents can claim tax on the basis of the amendment only during the next financial year and not during the current financial year. 4. Karimtharuvi Tea Estate v. State of Kerala (A.I.R.1966 S.C.1385) is an authority on the point. The Supreme Court held thus: "The Income-tax Act, as it stands amended on the first day of April of any financial year applies to the assessments of that year. Any amendments in the Act which come into force after the first day of April of a financial year do not apply to the assessment for that year, even if the assessment is actually made after the amendments come into force." The Supreme Court considered the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 which came into force on September 1,1957. The Act was not retrospective in operation. Supreme Court held that it cannot be regarded as law in force at the commencement of the year of assessment 1957-58 and observed that as the Surcharge Act was not the law in force on April 1, 1957, it could not be levied under the said Act against the assessee in the assessment year 1957-58. Supreme Court held that it cannot be regarded as law in force at the commencement of the year of assessment 1957-58 and observed that as the Surcharge Act was not the law in force on April 1, 1957, it could not be levied under the said Act against the assessee in the assessment year 1957-58. As the Kerala Finance Act (Act 18 of 1987) came into force on 1-7-1987 only, it has to be held that the petitioner is not liable to pay tax at the revised rate during that financial year. 5. Government Pleader pointed out that under S.9 of the Kerala Plantations Act petitioner has alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal and as that remedy has not been pursued the writ petition is not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as' the petitioner is seeking a declaration that he is not liable to pay the enhanced tax during the financial year there cannot be any bar in view of the appellate remedy available to him. In Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana (1985 (3) S.C.C. 267) the Supreme Court held: "The rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion, a self-imposed restraint on the court, rather Thai) a rule of law. It does outputs the jurisdiction of the Court. Where the order complained against is alleged to be illegal or invalid as being contrary to law, a petition at the instance of person adversely affected by it, would lie to the High Court under Article 226 and such a petition cannot be rejected on the ground that an appeal lies to the higher officer or the State Government. An appeal in all cases cannot be said to provide in all situations, an alternative effective remedy keeping aside the nice distinction between jurisdiction and merits." It is also useful to refer to Khurai Municipality v. Kamal Kumar ( A.I.R.1965 S.C.1321) where the Apex Court held: "Though the High Court would not ordinarily entertain a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution where an alternative remedy is open to the aggrieved party, it has jurisdiction to grant relief to such a party if it thinks proper to do so in the circumstances of the case." In Calcutta Discount Co. v. Income-tax Officer (AIR 1961 SC 372) the Supreme Court held that a mere existence or an alternative remedy is not always a sufficient reason for refusing a party quick relief by a writ or order prohibiting an authority acting without jurisdiction from continuing such action. As the respondents lack jurisdiction to demand enhanced tax during 1987-88, existence of alternative remedy cannot operate as a bar. Petitioner is entitled to the declaration that the respondents cannot rely on the provisions of the Kerala Finance Act 1987 imposing levy of plantation tax for the year 1987-88 at a higher rate than the rate prevalent on 1-4-1987. In that view of the matter, Ext.P1 is hereby quashed. The Original Petition stands allowed with no order as to costs.