This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of section 12 of the Assam Taxation (On Specified Lands) Act, 1990 and Rule 25 of the Rules framed thereunder. In addition, the petitioner has also assailed the legality and validity of the summons dated 8.9.95 issued by the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery )/Bakijai Officer, Karimganj, Assam in Bikijai Case No. 602/1995-96, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,48,028 only as outstanding dues including penalty for the year 1994 under the aforesaid Act, 1990. 2. The petitioner/company is the owner of M/s Jalal Nagar Tea Estate and Madanpur Tea Estate situated in the Karimganj District of Assam. The petitioner stated in the writ petition that for the year 1990-91, it paid the taxes under Assam Taxation (On Specified Lands) Act, 1990, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1990. In the year 1992, the total tax payable by the petitioner came to Rs. 1,99,791.00 and the respondent No.3 Superintendent of Taxes, Karimganj accordingly issued notice to the petitioner on 8.3.94, which was received by the petitioner on 17.3.94 demanding a tax of Rs.4,69,360.00. By the said notice, the petitioner was directed to pay the tax by 15.3.94 or else to pay 100% penalty over the above the assessment. The petitioner on receipt of the above notice, filed an application on 18.3.94 before the authority stating its difficulties in making payment of such a huge amount at a time and prayed for allowing the petitioner to pay in easy instalments. However, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 4.4.95. By notice dated 24.6.94, the petitioner was asked to show cause against penalty under section 12(1) of the Act, 1990. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was asked to clear up its dues by 30.6.94 without fail and that no further time would be allowed to the petitioner. It was further stated that failure to make payment within the stipulated date, would entail imposition of 100% penalty over and above the tax due. The petitioner approached the respondent No.3 praying for allowing time to pay the amount due. However, respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that he had issued Bikijai Certificate for realisation of the entire amount including the penalty from the petitioner. The petitioner approached the respondent No.3 praying for allowing time to pay the amount due. However, respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that he had issued Bikijai Certificate for realisation of the entire amount including the penalty from the petitioner. The petitioner received summons dated 8.7.94, in connection with Bakijai Case No.498 of 1994-95, for payment of Rs.8,88,720.00 including the penalty imposed on the petitioner. However, on the ground of wrong assessment, aforesaid Bakijai proceeding was cancelled and thereafter a new Bikijai case was initiated bearing No.501 of 1994-95 and issued summons dated 22.7.94. Thereafter, in a case filed by the petitioner, this Court by its order dated 28.7.94, directed that the principal amount of Rs.4,34,000.00 in the Bakijai case No.501 of 1994-95, should be paid in instalments within a period of four months and the amount of penalty would stand suspended. Respondent No.3 again initiated a Bikijai case bearing No.602 of 1995-96 against the petitioner demanding payment of Rs. 1,24,014.00 and Rs.1,24,014.00 as penalty, in total amounting to Rs. 2,48,028.00 under the Act, 1990 notwithstanding the fact that the aforesaid Act, 1990 charged higher rates of tax which has since been amended as per notification dated 5.5.94. Respondent No.4, the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery)/Baikijai Officer, Karimganj, accordingly issued summons to the petitioner dated 8.9.95 stating it to be a defaulter and directed him to appear in person along with the payment of Rs.2,48,028.00 and the requisite process fees within seven days from the date of receipt of summons. Hence this writ petition. 3. In the writ petition, as stated earlier, the vires of section 12 of the Act, 1990 as well as Rule 25 of the Rules framed thereunder, are assailed as being arbitrary and discriminatory. In addition, the petitioner also challenged the imposition of tax at the rate 50 paise per Kg instead of 18 paise per Kg as per amendment. 4. Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that section 12 of the Act, 1990 conferred untrammelled and unrestricted power on the authorities to impose penalty equal to the amount of tax assessed on without any indication as to how and to what percentage, the same is to be assessed. Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act, 1990 by the State Govt., contended Mr. Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act, 1990 by the State Govt., contended Mr. Dhar, is also silent about the mode of imposition/levy of the penalty so much that even for a delay of one day in payment of the tax assessed, a hundred percent penalty may be imposed. Therefore section 12 of the Act, 1990 as well as Rule 25 of the Rules, 1990 are violative of the provisions of the Constitution. Mr. Dhar further submitted that a wide and sleeping power is conferred on the Superintendent of Taxes for imposition of penalty without any guidelines, providing room for the Superintendent to act capriciously. Learned counsel, Mr. Dhar, in support of his contention referred to the case Pankaj Kumar Lahkar & others vs. State of Assam & others, reported in 1998 (2) GLT 364. Mr. Dhar submitted that the legislative provisions to pass the test of Article 14, must conform to the principles of reasonableness. Thereafter, he pointing to the Amended Act of 1994, submitted that in view of the amended provisions, the respondents could not have realised taxes more than 18 paise for every Kg. 5. Mr HN Sarma, learned Addl Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents defended the statutory provisions as well as the action of the respondents. Mr. Sarma pointing to the provisions of the statute, submitted that in every stage there is necessary check and balance in enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The subsequent to the Assam Taxation (On Specified Lands) (Amendment) Act, 1994, the rates of tax on per kilo productivity of the land was reduced. 6. The Act referred to above, was enacted to provide for imposition of a tax on specified lands on the annual productivity of the land. The subsequent to the Assam Taxation (On Specified Lands) (Amendment) Act, 1994, the rates of tax on per kilo productivity of the land was reduced. 6. The Act referred to above, was enacted to provide for imposition of a tax on specified lands on the annual productivity of the land. Relevant provisions of the Act are detailed below : "2, In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) 'annual productivity in respect of any specified land means the productivity of such land determined in accordance with section-4; (b) 'Commissioner' means the Commissioner appointed under sub-section (1) of section 15; (c) 'green' leaves means the plucked and unprocessed green leaves of the plant, Camellia Sinensis (L) O Kuntze; (d) 'owner' in relation to any coal mine or tea estate means any person who is the immediate proprietor thereof or of any part thereof and includes, with reference to a coal mine or tea estate the possession of which or part whereof has been transferred by lease, mortgage or otherwise, the person to whom possession is so transferred so long as his right to possession subsists or, as the case may be liquidator, receiver, agent or any other person in charge of a coal mine or tea estate; (e) 'person' means and includes (i) as individual; (ii) a Hindu undivided or joint family; (iii) a company; (iv) a firm; (v) an association of persons or body of individuals whether incorporated or not; (vi) a department of any Government; (vii) a local authority; and (viii) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses; (h) 'Specified land' means (1) any land used or intended to be used for growing tea and for purpose ancillary thereto or any part of such land in this Act referred to as 'tea estate' or (ii) any land held for the purpose of obtaining or extracting coal or any part of such land in this Act referred to as 'coal mine; 3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of this Act a tax shall be levied and collected annually on and from the commencement of this Act in respect of all specified lands in the State on the annual productivity of such land. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of this Act a tax shall be levied and collected annually on and from the commencement of this Act in respect of all specified lands in the State on the annual productivity of such land. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and subject to sub-sections (3) and (4) no tax shall be levied under sub-section (1) in respect of a tea estate for any year during which the total area of specified land owned or held by the owner and used or intended to be used by him during the year for growing tea and purposes ancillary thereto doesnot exceed thirty Bighas. (3) The exemption under sub-section (2) shall be admissible for a period of five years (a) from the first day of January, 1990 in case of an owner who was engaged on growing tea at the commencement of this Act; and (b) in any other case for a period five years from the date of commencement of production of green tea leaves by the qwner. Explanation - For the purpose of clause (b) production of green tea leaves by an owner shall be deemed to have commenced on the date from which the green tea leaves are plucked for the purpose of processing either by himself or by any other person. (4) A Hindu undivided or joint family firm shall be eligible for the exemption under sub-section (2) only if the aggregate area of all specified lands owned or held by each member of the family or firm and used or intended to be used jointly by the said family or firm for growing tea and purpose ancillary thereto does not exceed thirty Bighas. 4. 4. The annual productivity of any land in respect of any year shall be determined by aggregating : (i) in case of a tea estate, the quantity in kilograms of green tea leaves produced in the tea estate during the year; and (ii) in case of a coal mine, the quantity in metric tones of coal extracted or obtained from such mine during the year, and after deducting therefrom such quantity of green tea leaves or, as the case may be coal as is required to be, deducted by virtue of any provision of this Act or rules thereunder ; Provided that in determining the annual productivity of any land under this section a fraction of kilogram or as the case may be, metric tonne shall be ignored. 5. The rate of the tax under section 3 shall be as follows r (1) in case of a tea estate, eighteen paise for every kilogram of the annual productivity of the tea estate; and (ii) in case of a coal mine, one hundred rupees for every metric tonne of the annual productivity of the coal mine. 12. (i) If any owner defaults in payment of any tax assessed under section 9 he shall be liable to pay by way of penalty in addition to the tax assessed an amount not exceeding the amount of tax assessed and remaining unpaid. (2) The penalty under sub-section (1) may be levied by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation : An owner shall be deemed to be default for the purposes of this section if he fails to pay the tax assessed or any part thereof by the prescribed date." 7. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 17 of the Act, 1990 (as amended), a set of Rules is framed known as the Assam Taxation (On Specified Lands) Rules, 1990. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1990 provides for payment of advance tax, Rule 5 provides for the manner of payment of tax, Rule 6 provides for issuance of notice of demand. Under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1990 provision is made for submission of Return with the Superintendent and under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, it is provided that the Return shall be filed in respect of every year within sixty days of the end of the year to which it relates. Under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1990 provision is made for submission of Return with the Superintendent and under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, it is provided that the Return shall be filed in respect of every year within sixty days of the end of the year to which it relates. If any owner fails to file the return in respect of any year within the period specified in sub-rule (2), the Superintendent may serve on the owner within six months from the end of the year a notice requiring the owner to file a return showing the amount of tax payable by him for that year and such owner shall thereupon file the return within the period and with the authority specified in the notice. Rules 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Rules, provide for assessment, cancellation of assessment, of escaped tax and rectification of mistake, respectively. An appeal against an order of the Superintendent of. Tax under the Act or any rule shall lie to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Rule 19). A suo motu revision as well as a revision on a petition is also made admissible under Rule 20 to the Commissioner. Any owner aggrieved by an order passed in appeal under section 19, may prefer an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue within sixty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him (Rule 21). The owner or the Commissioner may within sixty days from the date of service of any order under Rule 21, by a petition in writing require the Board to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order of the Board or the Board may make such reference out of its own motion (Rule 22). Rule 23 lays down the mode of recovery of dues from owners who have defaulted. Rule 24 provides for refund of the amount paid/deposited in excess and Rule 25 of the Rules provides for the procedure of levying the penalty under section 12, which reads as follows : "25. Penalty (1) The penalty under section 12 may be levied by the Superintendent. (2) Before levying a penalty under section 12 the Superintendent shall serve. Rule 24 provides for refund of the amount paid/deposited in excess and Rule 25 of the Rules provides for the procedure of levying the penalty under section 12, which reads as follows : "25. Penalty (1) The penalty under section 12 may be levied by the Superintendent. (2) Before levying a penalty under section 12 the Superintendent shall serve. on the owner a notice requiring the owner on a date and at a place specified in the notice to attend and show cause, either by himself or by an agent authorised in writing in this behalf, why a penalty under section 12, not exceeding an amount specified in the notice should not be imposed on him. (3) The Superintendent shall thereupon hold an enquiry and shall make such order as he thinks fit." 8. The Act has undergone several amendments. By Assam Act No. XXVII of 1994, section 5 of the Assam Act No. XII of 1990 (the principal Act) and for the words 'fifty paise' in clause (1) of section 5 of Assam Act XII of 1990, the words 'eighteen paise' were substituted. Subsequently, by the Assam Act No. VII of 1997, some provisions of sections 3 and 5 of the principal Act (Assam Act XII of 1990) were amended, which are extracted herein below : "2. In the Assam Taxation (On Specified Lands) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 3, (i) in sub-section (2) the word, figure and bracket, and (4) shall be omitted; (ii) sub-section (3) shall be omitted and the existing sub-section (4) shall be renumbered as sub-section (3) 3. In the principal Act, for section 5, the following shall be substituted namely: "5. The rate of tax under section 3 for every kilogram of the annual productivity of the tea estate shall be­ta) nil- if the aggregate area of specified lands held by a person does not exceed four hectares; (b) twenty paise,- if the aggregate area of specified lands held by a person does not exceed four hectares; (c) thirty paise, - if the aggregate area of specified lands held by a person not exceeds forty hectares; (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (c), if the specified lands exceeding forty hectares falls in the Barak Valley, the rates of tax under section 3 for every kilogram of the annual productivity of the estate shall be twenty seven paise." 9. Admittedly, what is challenged is mainly the vires of the Act as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Dhar, since the Act has given discretionary power on the authority to impose penalty not exceeding the amount of tax assessed and no guidelines as such is given for exercise of such powers, there is a possibility of misuse of such discretionary powers. 10. Possibility of misuse of the powers conferred under a statute cannot be a ground for declaring the statute/Act to be ultra vires. An Act cannot be judged in isolation - it has to be judge as a whole. While judging a taxing statute, one must keep in mind that the Legislature has its full freedom to identify the area of taxation subject to the legislative competence to impose tax. The Legislature is supposed to know the subject matter of taxation as well as the subject to be; taxed. Tax is imposed to make additions to the revenue of the State Govt. coffer. For that purpose, certain categories of lands are taxed on the basis of its/their annual productivity. It is not a agricultural income as sought to be shown. It is a pure and simple tax on certain categories of lands on the basis of its annual productivity. By section 12 of the Act, 1990 (as amended upto date), the Legislature has given the outer limit for imposition of penalty. The penalty imposed, under sub-section (1), is not to exceed the amount of tax assessed and remaining unpaid Similar provisions are also there in numerous taxation statutes - one can readily point out to the provision of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939. But that does not mean that the penalty levied is to be equal to the amount of tax assessed. Rule 25 of the Rules, 1990 (as amended upto date) provides for the imposition of penalty. Under the Rules, it has been made obligatory on the authority to serve on the owner a notice requiring the owner on a date and at a place specified in the notice to attend and show cause, before levying the penalty under section 12 of the Act, 1990, as to why a penalty under section 12 not exceeding the amount specified in the notice should not be imposed on him. Under the statutory requirement, it is not only a notice to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed, but also a notice as to the amount proposed to be imposed on him to enable him/owner to show cause as to why such as amount should not be imposed. The Superintendent of Taxes is, thereafter, to hold an enquiry and make such order as he thinks fit. As indicated earlier, an appeal as well as a revision lies against such an order in addition to the provisions for appeal and reference. Judged in that line therefore, in this situation, it cannot be said that section 12 provided arbitrary powers on the authorities without any guideline. Sufficient safeguard is provided in the statute itself. Rule 25 of the Rules, 1990 is in conformity with the principle of fairness in action as envisioned in Article 14 of the Constitution for affording a fair opportunity to the owner or assessee to show cause before levying of the penalty. Similar provisions are also there in other taxing statutes. The contention that provisions of section 12 of the Act, 1990 (as amended upto date) and that of Rule 25 of the Rules, 1990, (as amended upto date) are ultra vires, thus, cannot be upheld. 11. Mr N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is however in a firmer footing as regards the other ground that after the Assam Act XXVII of 1994 and before the amended Assam Act VII of 1997, the rate of tax underaction 3 of the Assam Act XII of 1990, in case of a tea estate, eighteen paise for every kilogram of the annual productivity of the tea estate and, therefore, before the Assam Act VII of 1997 came into force, the owner was required to pay a tax at the rate of eighteen paise of every kilogram of annual productivity of the land (tea estate). The petitioner shall, therefore, get the benefit of the amended Act of 1994 and accordingly, now the authority shall compute the tax as per amended provisions of the Act 1994 and pass necessary orders. 12. It seems that the petitioner has already paid the principal amount and the Court stayed payment of the penalty. The petitioner shall, therefore, get the benefit of the amended Act of 1994 and accordingly, now the authority shall compute the tax as per amended provisions of the Act 1994 and pass necessary orders. 12. It seems that the petitioner has already paid the principal amount and the Court stayed payment of the penalty. In view of the relevant provisions, the petitioner cannot be charged tax at a rate more than eighteen paise per kilogram of annual productivity for the assessment years in question. The authority shall adjust the amount paid in excess, if any, so that the petitioner is not taxed at a rate more than Rs.0.18 per kilogram of annual productivity of the land. 13. In the light of the observation made above, this writ petition stands disposed.