9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Requirement to apply afresh for registration as a valuer under the amended Wealth-tax Act. 2. Rejection of applications based on the income criterion. 3. Authority of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to set additional criteria for registration. Detailed Analysis: 1. Requirement to Apply Afresh for Registration: The petitioners argued that they were not required to apply afresh for continuation of their registration as valuers under the amended provisions of the Wealth-tax Act. However, the court noted that Section 34AE(1) of the Act, effective from June 1, 1988, mandated that existing registered valuers must apply afresh for continuation of their registration. Therefore, the petitioners were obligated to submit new applications under the amended provisions. 2. Rejection of Applications Based on Income Criterion: The applications of both petitioners were rejected on the grounds that their income for the last ten years was less than Rs. 50,000 per annum. The petitioners contended that the Wealth-tax Rules did not stipulate any minimum income requirement for registration. The court examined Rule 8A, which prescribes the qualifications for registration as valuers, and found that it did not include any monetary criterion. The court held that the administrative decision of the CBDT to include a financial criterion was not incorporated in the Rules and, therefore, could not be legally enforced. Consequently, the rejection of the applications based on the income criterion was deemed illegal. 3. Authority of the CBDT to Set Additional Criteria: The Revenue argued that the CBDT had the authority to set additional criteria under Section 46 of the Wealth-tax Act, which empowers the Board to make rules. The court acknowledged that while the CBDT has the power to make rules, any additional criteria must be incorporated into the Rules through proper legislative procedures. Since the financial criterion was not included in the Rules, the CBDT's decision to reject the applications based on this criterion was not valid. The court emphasized that the qualifications for registration must be as specified in the Rules, and the CBDT's administrative decisions could not override the statutory provisions. Conclusion: The court allowed the petitions, quashing the orders rejecting the applications of the petitioners for registration as valuers. The court directed the respondent to reconsider the applications in accordance with Rule 8A(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, without considering the monetary receipts of the petitioners. The court concluded that the CBDT's decision to impose an income criterion was not supported by the statutory framework and, therefore, could not be enforced. The applications should be decided based on the qualifications and experience as prescribed in the Rules. Separate Judgments: The judgment was delivered by a single judge and applies to both petitions collectively. No separate judgments were delivered by different judges.
|
