1979 (3) TMI 52 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The valuation of immovable properties for assessment under the Wealth-tax Act, legality of issuing multiple valuation notices, jurisdiction of Valuation Officer, principles of natural justice regarding cross-examination, availability of alternative remedy through appeal.

Valuation of Immovable Properties:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, filed returns for assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77, declaring the value of properties. One property, Luxmi Building, was valued at Rs. 3,24,509. The Valuation Officer issued notices for valuation, leading to a dispute over the valuation amount.

Legality of Multiple Valuation Notices:
The petitioner contended that issuing a second notice with a different valuation amount was not permissible after an initial notice. The court held that the Valuation Officer can withdraw an earlier notice and issue a fresh one with a different provisional estimate, as long as the assessee is given an opportunity to contest the valuation.

Jurisdiction of Valuation Officer:
The Valuation Officer's jurisdiction is derived from the reference made by the WTO and continues until a report is submitted. Once the report is submitted, the Valuation Officer becomes functus officio. The WTO cannot make a second reference requiring the Valuation Officer to review a report already submitted.

Principles of Natural Justice - Cross-Examination:
The petitioner alleged a denial of natural justice for not being allowed to cross-examine the Valuation Officer. The court held that even if the valuation report could be challenged through cross-examination, the WTO is bound to accept the report. The petitioner can challenge the report's legality and correctness through appeal.

Availability of Alternative Remedy:
The court noted that the petitioner can challenge the valuation report in appeal, providing an alternative remedy. As the assessment had not been completed, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was deemed not maintainable post the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the petition, upholding the legality of the valuation process and the actions of the Valuation Officer and WTO. The petitioner was advised to seek recourse through the appeal process for any grievances regarding the valuation of properties.