Ross, J.The plaintiff stated that be submitted to the Collector a return showing the net income of his estate after deduction of the amount paid to the Government as land revenue, among other items, in the years 1915-1916 and 1916-1917, but the Collector required him to pay Income Tax on the amount which he had so deducted as, Government revenue, thereby, exceeding his powers u/s 15 of Act II of 1886. He, therefore, claimed a refund of the tax so realized in excess.

2. The defence of the Secretary of State was that the suit was barred by Section 39 of Act VI of 1886. The learned Munsif accepted the defence and dismissed the suit.

3. The Subordinate Judge, however, held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction in the matter and gave the plaintiff a decree.

4. In second appeal it is contended on behalf of the Secretary of State that the order of the Revenue Authorities is final. The plaintiff appealed to the Collector and to the Commissioner against the assessment and failed, and he is not entitled to come to the Civil Court for what is in reality a modification of the assessment made under the Act, It is contended that there is no dispute about the income and that it is for the Revenue Authorities to decide what deductions from income are to be made. On behalf of the respondent the argument is that the Collector has in effect taxed what is not income and has, therefore, acted ultra vires and that the Civil Court has jurisdiction in these circumstances.

5. On the general principle on which the Civil Court interferes in such cases there is no doubt. Where an authority is by Statute vested with exclusive powers over any subject-matter, then so long as these powers are exercised on that subject-matter, the Civil Court cannot interfere, but if the authority purports to exercise these powers on what is not that, subject matter, then the Court will interfere, because the authority is not acting under the Statute and is not protested thereby. As it was stated in Chairman of Giridih Municipality v. Srish Chandra Mozumdar 35 C. 859 : 12 C.W.N. 709 : 7 C.L.J. 681, "The true test is, whether there has been a substantial disregard of the provisions of the law which creates the authority...and regulates its powers and duties".

6. u/s 14 of Act II of 1886 the Collector shall determine what persons are chargeable and the amount at which every person so chargeable shall be assessed, and u/s 15 the assessment shall be made upon the income accruing to the person during the year ending on the day on which his accounts have been last made up. u/s 3(5) "income" means "income and profits accruing and arising or received in British India." The question then is, what has the Collector done in this case If he has assessed income, then even if his assessment is wrong, the Civil Court cannot interfere by reason of Section 39 of the Act. If he has assessed something which is not income, then he has acted without jurisdiction. "income signifies what comes in. It is as large a word as can be used" (see Strouds Judicial Dictionary). The plaint sets forth what the plaintiff calls net income. This is not an expression to be found in the Act. The Act defines income and deals with income. It cannot be denied that the total sum on which the plaintiff has been assessed is income. This is implied in the plaint itself. The Collector, therefore, had jurisdiction to assess fax on it. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to deduct Government revenue from the income. The Collector decided that he was not so entitled, but this again was a matter within the jurisdiction of the Collector. If the Collector is to asters Income Tax at all, he must decide how much comes in and what the outgoings to be legitimately deducted are. There is no dispute in this case as to what came in. The dispute is as to outgoings. This is for the Collector. I am wholly unable to see that anything has been done ultra vires of the Collector. I, therefore, hold that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over this question and that the suit cannot be maintained.

7. The appeal is decreed with costs and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout.