9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmu and Kashmir High Court in the case of P.C. Oswal v. S.P. Mehta, WTO [1983] 142 ITR574 inwhich their Lordships of the Hon'ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court have held that the Union Parliament has no competence to legislate the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') for the State of Jammu and Kashmir. According to their Lordships, "the Wealth-tax Act 1957, insofar as it purports to be applicable to the State ofJammu and Kashmir, is ultra vires the Constitution of India, as applied to the State." In view of the above statement of law by the Hon'ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court, it is urged by the learned counsel for the assessee that we should exclude from the wealth of the assessee, the property situated in theterritoryofJammu and Kashmir. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive petitioners on the basis of such proceedings. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs." [Emphasis supplied] The prayer before their Lordships was that assessment proceedings under the Act which had been initiated against the petitioners concerned should be quashed and the said request of the petitioners was accepted by the Hon'ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court. 4. The prayer of the assessee in the present case is not that wealth-tax assessments made against her are null and void and, therefore, the assessments in question should be quashed. Her request is that, though she is liable to pay wealth-tax, as she is residing at Dehradun, the property situated in the State ofJammu and Kashmiris not liable to be included in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it will in respect of persons situated outside the State ofJammu and Kashmirit applies in its entirety. It cannot be urged that the assets situated inJammu and Kashmirhave been granted special exception by the above decision. That is not the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court, for their Lordships were at pairs (see pp. 577-578) in emphasising in the said judgment that wealth-tax was not a tax on capital value of assets, but was a tax on the aggregate value of the assets over the aggregate value of debts and such a tax could not be regarded as a tax on the capital value of an asset. The argument of the assessee has, therefore, no substance and the value of property situated inJammucannot be excluded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
