( 1 ) PETITIONER in WP No. 13394 and 13635 - 36/2000 is questioning the retrospective amendment to Section 15 of the Karnataka agricultural Income Tax Act (for short the Act) with a further prayer for declaration that the said amendment is prospective in character. Petitioner is also seeking for quashing of assessment orders in terms of Annexures-A, D and E. Petitioner is an sssessee in terms of the agricultural Income Tax Act. Returns were filed by the petitioner. Assessments have been made by the second respondent. The loss determined in the assessment have been allowed to be carried forward in terms of Section 15 of the Act Section 15 was amended by the Karnataka Taxation Laws (amendment) Act, 1990 retrospectively w. e. f. 1-4-1987. Petitioner filed the annual returns for the assessment year 1995-96 claiming total loss of Rs. 11,78,901. 92 which includes depreciation amount of Rs. 1,59,146/ -. The assessing authority allowed the assessee to carry forward the loss to the extent of Rs. 1,59,146a as depreciation for subsequent year. The Assessing Authority did not allow the petitioner to carry forward the loss to the extent of Rs. 10,19,755. 82 in terms of the amendment. Petitioner in these circumstances is before me seeking for the above referred prayers.

( 2 ) PETITIONER in WP No. 32321/2001 is seeking the same prayer as in the earlier case. Petitioner in this case filed his return in terms of the Act for the assessment year 1897-98. He declared net loss of Rs. 1,63,362a. The loss declared w> ;s efter claiming the set off the unabsorbed loss of earlier years 1 996-97 to the tune of Rs. 2,01,947/- besides unabsorbed deprction allowance for the assessment year 1995-96 and 1996-97. The set off loss and unabsorbed depreciation claimed were allowed by the assessing authority while concluding the assessment under Section 19 (3) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under Section 37 of the Act was issued to withdraw the set off of the loss claimed for the assessment year 1996-97 in view of belated filing of returns on account of the amendment of Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1057 w. e. f. 1-4-1987. The said notice is challenged in this petition

( 3 ) IN WP No. 33893/2001 petitioner filed the returns and the assessment proceedings were completed in terms of Annexure-A. Appeal was filed in terms of the appellate order. Thereafter an assessment order has been issued to the petitioner for the year 1996-97 in terms of Annexure-C. An endorsement has also been issued in terms of Annexure-D. Petitioner in this petition is also challenging the retrospective character of the amendment in addition to the notice.

( 4 ) PETITIONER in WP No. 414849/2001 is also challenging the amendment in the case on hand.

( 5 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance and they have filed their statement of objections in all these cases. The objections are almost same in all cases. According to respondents, the constitution provides for levy of tax on Agricultural Income. The Government of karnataka in its wisdom amended Section 15 with retrospective effect. According to respondents, this amendment has become necessary in the light of the judgment of this Court in ASHOK plantations PVT LTD. , vs ASST. COMMR. , OF COMMERCIAL taxes, MADIKERM. They say that the amendment is legal and valid. They also contend that the amendment is effected to cure the defect in terms of the judgment of this Court. They justify their action.

( 6 ) SRI Sarangan learned Sr. Counsel took me through the provisions of Section 15 and 18 to contend that this retrospective character given to the amendment is illegal and unsustainable. Learned Counsel explains that even when this Court passed an order in the earlier petition, Section 18 was available to the respondents. He says that this Court has passed the earlier orders in Ashok Plantations' case following the judgment of the Supreme court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB vs KULU transport COMPANY PVT. , LTD. ,. He relies on various c