The legislative intervention and amendment of the Principal Act rendered the order passed by the Tribunal ineffective, and the petitioner was entitled to raise other points against the orders under challenge.

Tirath S. Thakur, J.—Assessment proceedings for asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 were completed by the Agrl. ITO, Chickmagalur by four different orders passed by him. Suo motu revisional proceedings against the said orders were then initiated by the Dy. Commr. of Commercial Taxes (A), Mysore culminating in orders that came under challenge in four different appeals filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The challenge inter alia was founded on the plea that the Dy. Commr. had no power or authority to revise the assessment orders, in the light of the provisions of the Karnataka Agrl. IT (Amendment) Act, 1983, which conferred such powers only in respect of assessments made upto the year ending 31st of March, 1982. The Tribunal found favour with this argument and by a common order dt. 7th June, 1985 set aside the orders passed by the Dy. Commr., holding the same to be without jurisdiction. While the position stood thus Karnataka Agrl. IT (Amendment) Act, 1985, (Karnataka Act 23 of 1985) amended s. 35 in the Principal Act and inter alia introduced with retrospective effect an explanation which reads as follows :

"Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that subject to the provisions of sub-s. (2), the revisional power conferred on the Dy. Commr. by sub-s. (1) shall be exercisable in respect of an order passed under this Act by any authority subordinate to him before or after the conferment of revisional power on him."

2. Consequent upon the above addition, the respondent by his communication dt. 14th of October, 1985, informed the petitioner about the effect of the Explanation and called upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of tax payable for the assessment years in question as determined by the Dy. Commr. in the orders, passed by him in suo moto revisional proceedings. The communication pointed out that on account of the addition of the Explanation, the decision delivered by the Tribunal as to the validity of the orders passed by the Dy. Commr. had been rendered ineffective and unenforceable. A similar communication was sent by the respondent to the Coffee Board asking the latter to hold back the amounts payable to the petitioner for purposes of utilisation of the outstanding tax dues. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions questioning the communications and the demand raised by the respondent.

3. Mr. Sarangan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders passed by the Dy. Commr. of Commercial Taxes having been set aside by the Tribunal, it was not open to the respondent to ignore the said orders or treat the same to have been rendered inoperative or ineffective, amendment to s. 35 and the introduction of the Explanation to the same notwithstanding. He contended that if the order passed by the Tribunal had on account of the Explanation introduced by the legislature been rendered ineffective, the only course open to the respondent was to have the said order recalled by the Tribunal or set aside in appropriate proceedings. So long as the said order held the field, contended Mr. Sarangan, it was not open to the respondent on its own, to ignore the same on his appreciation of how the Explanation affected its validity. The argument sounds attractive, but I am afraid is not equally sound. It is no doubt true that an order passed by a competent Court or an authority cannot except in exceptional circumstances where the same may be deemed to be a nullity be ignored or treated non est in law, for it is only when such an order is either set aside by a competent Court or otherwise rendered ineffective or void by an appropriate legislative measure that its legal effect can be avoided. The question however, is whether in the instant case, in the absence of any order from a competent Court setting aside the view taken by the Tribunal, the said order could be deemed to be ineffective for any other reason. My answer would be in the af