S. K. DAS, J.:

(1) THE facts of the case have been stated in the judgment of my learned brother Kapur J., and it is not necessary for me to restate them. I have reached the same conclusion as has been reached by my learned brother. But in view of the importance of the question raised, I, would like to state in my own words the reasons for reaching that conclusion.

(2) THE two questions which have been referred to this larger bench are: 1. Is an order of assessment made by an authority, under a taxing statute which is Intra vires, open to challenge as repugnant to Art. 19 (1) (g), on the sole ground that it is based on a misconstruction of a provision of the Act or of a notification issued there under? 2. Can the validity of such an order be questioned in a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution ?

(3) THESE two questions are inter-connected and substantially relate to one matter: is the validity of an order made with jurisdiction under an Act which is Intra vires and good law in all respects, or of a notification properly issued thereunder, liable to be questioned in a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution on the sole ground that the provisions of the Act, or the terms of the notification issued thereunder, have been misconstrued ?

(4) IT is necessary, perhaps, to start with the very Article, namely, Art. 32, with reference to which the question has to be answered. `32. (1) The right to move the. Supreme court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme court shall have power to issue directions or orders or write, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, qua warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme court under clause (2). The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.` The Article occurs in Part III of the Constitution headed Fundamental Rights. It is one of a series of articles which fall under the sub-head, `Right to Constitutional Remedies`. There can be no doubt that the right to move the Supreme court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of a right conferred by Part III is itself a guaranteed fundamental right. Indeed, cl. (1) of the Article says so in express terms. Clause (2) says that this court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas Corpus, mandamus, prohibition, qao warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III. Clause (4) makes it clear that the right guaranteed by the Article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by the Constitution. Article 359 of the Constitution . states that where a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation the President may by order declare that the right to move any court for the enforcement of such of the rights conferred by Part III as may be mentioned in the order and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the rights so mentioned shall remain suspended etc. It is clear, therefore, that so long as no order is made by the President to suspend the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution every person in India, citizen or otherwise, has the guaranteed right to move the Supreme court for enforcement of the rights conferred on him by Part III of the Constitution and the Supreme court has the power to issue necessary directions, orders or writs which may be appropriate for the enforcement of such rights. Indeed, this court has held in more than one decision that under