1998 (6) TMI 52 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entertainability of the writ application at the stage of valuation report.
2. Jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer.
3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Availability of alternative remedy under the Wealth-tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entertainability of the Writ Application at the Stage of Valuation Report:
The court addressed the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue regarding the entertainability of the writ application since no assessment order had been made by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 16A(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The court held that the preliminary objection must succeed because there was no necessity to entertain the writ application at this stage. The court emphasized that the valuation report is a piece of evidence on which the Wealth-tax Officer will base the assessment order, and it is not proper to entertain a writ application solely against the valuation report before the final assessment order is passed.

2. Jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer to Refer the Matter to the Valuation Officer:
The writ petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer to refer the valuation of the premises to the Valuation Officer under section 16A of the Act. The court noted that section 16A(1) confers power on the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation of any asset to a Valuation Officer if certain conditions are met. The court concluded that the appellate authority could address whether the Wealth-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to refer the matter for valuation, and hence, it was not necessary to entertain the writ application at this stage.

3. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The writ petitioners contended that the principles of natural justice were violated as no personal hearing was given by the Valuation Officer before making the valuation report or order. The court examined whether the principles of natural justice were violated and held that the Valuation Officer had not violated these principles. The court clarified that "opportunity of hearing" does not always mean a personal hearing is required. Since the writ petitioners had filed a written submission, which was considered by the Valuation Officer, the court found no necessity for a personal hearing and concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated.

4. Availability of Alternative Remedy under the Wealth-tax Act:
The court highlighted that the Wealth-tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment of wealth-tax and obtaining relief through appeals. Section 23 of the Act allows for an appeal against the final assessment order, which includes the valuation report or order. The court emphasized that when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, it is not prudent for the writ court to entertain a writ application. The court cited precedents to support the principle that the existence of an alternative remedy precludes the need for writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under the Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, accepting the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue regarding the entertainability of the writ application at the stage of the valuation report. The court concluded that the Wealth-tax Act provides an adequate alternative remedy through appeals, and the principles of natural justice were not violated by the Valuation Officer. The court clarified that it did not address the merits of the valuation report or order, leaving those questions open to be decided by the appropriate forum. There was no order as to costs.