( 1 ) PETITIONERS in these petitions are challenging the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax The facts in both these cases are same or similar. ( 2 ) PETITIONER in WP No. No. 32256-257/00 owns coffee plantations in Kodagu District He submitted his Agricultural Income Tax Returns in terms of the Agricultural Income Tax Act Sec 66 provides for composition of Agricultural Income Tax payable by the petitioner under the Act. Petitioner made application for composition and the same was accepted. Thereafter petitioner wrote letters claiming benefit for the subsequent assessment years in the light of earlier permission. The respondents however directed the petitioner to file his returns for the assessment year 2000-01 in the light of an amendment in terms of the Act No. 5/2000 Petitioner is challenging the said endorsement in these petitions. ( 3 ) PETITIONER in WP No. No. 47091/2001 states that respondents granted permission under Sec 66 in the light of an application for the purpose of composition under the Act. Petitioner filed form No. 3 with a demand draft towards composition tax payable for the subsequent years Notice was issued to produce various documents in terms of Annexure-A Petitioner submitted a reply in terms of annexure-B and endorsement was issued by the respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner in this petition is therefore before me. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance and they oppose the petitions. They strongly rely on the amendment made to the Act for the purpose of their demand in terms of the Act. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties Sri Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel invites my attention to the scheme of the Act in the matter of composition. Learned counsel says that petitioners are entitled for exemption for the next two years immediately following, in terms of Sec. 66 (5) of the Act. According to him, the subsequent amendment cannot render ineffective the earlier composition permission in terms of the Act. He relies on three judgments with regard a vested right in his favour Per contra, learned Government Advocate says that in terms of the amendment. Petitioners are liable to pay the tax and the grant of permission is based on the earlier provision before amendment and that permission cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. He relies on three judgments with regard a vested right in his favour Per contra, learned Government Advocate says that in terms of the amendment. Petitioners are liable to pay the tax and the grant of permission is based on the earlier provision before amendment and that permission cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record Sec 66 (1) Provides for Composition of Agricultural Income Tax. The said provision reads as under; 66 (1) Composition of Agricultural Income Tax (1) Where the total extent of land under plantation crop held by any person does not exceed fifty acres such person may subject to such rules as may be prescribed, apply to the prescribed officer for permission to compound the Agricultural Income Tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rate specified in the table sub-Sec (5) of sec 66 reads as under; the permission granted under Sub-Section (4) shall be in force for the year for which it is granted and shall continue to be in force for the next two years immediately following or until such time the extent of land holding exceeds the maximum specified in sub-section (1) whichever is earlier, and in respect of that period the provisions of this Act relating to the submission of returns, accounts or other documents or the assessment to agricultural income tax shall not apply to the grantee ( 7 ) A combined reading of S 66 (1) with Sub-Section 5 would show that once the composition is accepted and permission is granted, the same has a life of three years including the relevant assessment year. Admittedly, petitioner has the benefit of permission in terms of Sec. 66 of the Act. Let me see as to whether the amendment effected to Sec 66 would in any way alter the situation prior to amendment dated 1. 4. 2000 a careful reading of Sub-Section 5 of Sec 66 would show that the permission granted is to continue for the next two years immediately following. The said permission cannot be withdrawn or nullified on the ground that the same is not available to the company after 1. 4. 2000 in terms of the amendment. 4. 2000 a careful reading of Sub-Section 5 of Sec 66 would show that the permission granted is to continue for the next two years immediately following. The said permission cannot be withdrawn or nullified on the ground that the same is not available to the company after 1. 4. 2000 in terms of the amendment. The law is fairly well settled that unless retrospective effect is given to a statute, the same is not to be extended in taxing statutes. In this connection it is necessary to notice the three judgments of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in (1969) 77 ITR 595 has categorically ruled as under; unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or unless there is any necessary implication, retrospective operation should not be given to the statute so as to affect, alter or destroy any right already acquired or to revive any right already lost by efflux of time this finding of the Supreme Court is based on its earlier judgment reported in 53 231. In the subsequent Judgment reported in (1989) 171 ITR 490, the Supreme Court has ruled as under; there is a well settled principle against interference with vested rights by subsequent legislation unless the legislation has been made retrospective expressly or by necessary implication ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court in (2002) 254 ITR 772 based on its earlier judgment reported in 53 ITR 231 has ruled as under; a taxing provision imposing liability is governed by the normal presum- ption that it is not retrospective and the settled principle of law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. Even a procedural provision cannot, in the absence of clear contrary intendment expressed therein, be given greater retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned so, as to enable the authorities to affect finality of tax assessments or to reopen liabilities which have become barred by lapse of time. ( 10 ) IN the case on hand, admittedly, petitioners have claimed right in terms of Sec 66 (1) as it stood prior to 1. 4. ( 10 ) IN the case on hand, admittedly, petitioners have claimed right in terms of Sec 66 (1) as it stood prior to 1. 4. 2000 with regard to extension of permission for the subsequent two years That right cannot be rendered in effective in the light of non-availability of composition to the company by subsequent prospective amendment The proceedings initiated by the respondent would not in any way provide a retrospective operation to the amendment That is not the intention of the Legislation and that is not the law in so far as retrospective nature is concerned particularly in fiscal statutes In these circumstances, Sri Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel is fully justified in contending that the subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction This finding of mine finds support in the light of the subsequent amendment in the year 2002 The Legislature at any rate has chosen to omit the words and shall continue to be in force for the next two years immediately following or until such time the extent of land holding exceeds the maximum specified in sub-section (1) whichever is earlier and also the words of three years in Subsection 6 of Section 66 A reading of the amended provision would show that the Government never intended to withdraw or nullify the permission granted for the subsequent two years in terms of Sec 66 (5) of the Act The argument of the Government that the authorities are right, cannot be accepted and any acceptance of such submission would result in retrospective nature to the amendment which is not the case in terms of may finding. ( 11 ) IN these circumstances, these petitions stand allowed. The Proceedings initiated by the respondent are set aside A direction is issued to respondent not to proceed under the Act until the period of three years in terms of Sec 66 (5) comes to an end including the relevant assessment year Liberty is reserved to the authorities to initiate action subsequent to three years in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Parties are to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .