( 1 ) IN this petition entitled as one under section 66 (2) of the Income Tax Act and also under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought a direction from this Court under section 66 (2) of the Income Tax Act to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a Statement of the Case and to raise and refer to this Court certain specified questions of law. In the alternative he has sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a Statement of the Case and to raise to this Court certain specified questions of law.

( 2 ) THE facts are these: The petitioner who carries on business of purchasing and selling medicines as a retailer was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1956-57 accounting period being Samvat Year 2011. In the course of the assessment proceedings the Income Tax Officer rejected the books of account of the petitioner and treated the amount of sales effected by the petitioner at Rs. 4 91 326 and also enhanced the gross profits of 5. 9 per cent disclosed by the petitioner to ten per cent. The result was an increase in the total income of the petitioner from Rs. 19 895 to Rs. 41 49 The petitioner appealed against that order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That appeal was dismissed. The petitioner carried the matter in further appeal to the Income Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal made some modification in the order but in effect upheld the decision taken by the authorities below. The petitioner thereafter required the Tribunal under section 66 (2) of the Income Tax Act to draw up-a Statement of the Case and raise and refer certain questions to this Court. The Tribunal dismissed that application and it is against that order of the Tribunal that the petitioner has come to this Court on this petition. The nature of the petition and the reliefs sought by the petitioner have already been indicated by us.

( 3 ) AT the time of the presentation of the petition the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 50/by way of court fees under Article 1 (f) (i) of the new Court fees Act 1959 and undertook if necessary to pay ad valorem Court fees which would come to Rs. 770/after the question of court fees payable on this petition was determined by the Court. A notice was directed to be issued to the Advocate General of the High Court of Gujarat as the matter affected revenue and also as contentions founded on certain provisions of the Constitution were raised in the petition. The principal contention raised on the petition touches the construction of certain provisions of the new Court Fees Act 1959 and being one of considerable importance this special Bench was constituted for deciding the same

( 4 ) THE petitioner in his petition has contended that while the assessee is liable to pay court fees while making an application under section 66 (2) of the Income Tax Act no such liability is imposed on the Commissioner of Income Tax while making a similar application under that section of the Income Tax Act. The submission is that there should be no discrimination between the petitioner and the Income Tax authorities because as regards the subject matter of the litigation their position is the same. He has relied on certain entries in the relevant Schedule to the Court Fees Act in support of this contention.

( 5 ) THE petitioner in his petition has also raised the contention that in any event the levy of court fees under the Act of 1959 can be prospective and not in any manner retrospective. This contention is founded on the fact that the petition arises out of matters relating to years prior to the coming into force of the Act of 1959. The petition relates to an order in respect of assessment year 1956-57 and appeals against the same and the right of the petitioner to file a petition under section 66 (2) of the Income Tax Act according to the petitioner can be governed only by the