9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGMENT KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA J.-In this case, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and the vires of rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"). The short facts are stated here under: The petitioner is a wealth-tax assessee and also a partner of a partnership firm, namely, J.K. and Sons (hereinafter referred to as "the said firm"), which at the relevant time was an existing and going concern and the same was not dissolved. The dispute in the writ petition related to the assessment and imposition of wealth-tax, therefore, for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, for which the relevant valuation dates were April 13, 1983, April 1, 1984, and March 21, 1985, respectively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obviously under rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules, which provides that the net wealth of the firm shall first be determined. Under the provisions of rule 2 that portion of the net wealth of the firm as is equal to the amount of its capital shall be allocated among the partners in the proportion in which capital has been contributed by them. It further appears from the plain reading of rule 2 that the sum total of the amounts allocated to a partner shall be treated as the value of the interest of that partner in the firm. Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, learned Additional Solicitor-General, submits that this writ petition has become infructuous in view of change of law during the pendency of the writ petition, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struck down. It can also be struck down for lack of legislative competence, but arbitrariness and unreasonableness are no ground to strike down legislative enactment. Having heard respective contentions of learned counsel, I find much substance in the contention of Mr. Ghosh that the writ petition has become infructuous, since rule 2 and section 7 have been omitted. Therefore, no judgment can be rendered on the question of vires of a law that has been repealed. I cannot accept the argument of Dr. Pal that rule 2 should be held to be ultra vires the Constitution of India, even it is made applicable. It is not the case of the petitioner as rightly pointed out by Mr. Ghosh that the provision of the said rule (since repealed) offends any of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, and are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in judgment over wisdom. An enactment cannot be struck down by applying the principle of proportionality when its applicability even in administrative laws field is not fully or finally settled. It is one thing to say that a restriction imposed upon a fundamental right can be struck down if it is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable and quite another thing to say that the court can strike down enactment if it thinks it unreasonable, un necessary or unwarranted. These two rules said above for striking down of enactments are however confined to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
