9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered opinion, the preliminary objection of learned counsel for the Revenue must succeed as I find that there is no necessity to entertain this writ application at this stage in view of the admitted fact that no assessment has yet been made by the Wealth-tax Officer in terms of sub-section (6) of section 16A of the Act. For the purpose of deciding the preliminary objection as raised by learned counsel for the Revenue, the facts which are necessary are stated below : The writ petitioners filed wealth-tax returns on or about November 27, 1995, for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1995-96 in respect of premises No. 17/1, Canal Street, Calcutta-700 014, amongst the other premises, viz., premises Nos. 25 and 26, Colootola Street, Calcutta, and undivided 1/4th share in premises No. 53, Phears Lane, Calcutta. Since I am at the present stage concerned with the valuation of premises No. 17/1 Canal Street, Calcutta, I need not go into the details in respect of other premises as mentioned hereinabove. The premises No. 17/1, Canal Street, according to the writ petitioner, were requisitioned by the Government of West Bengal in 1943 and they were de-requisitioned by it in the year 1988. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was, however, disposed of by Arun Kumar Dutta (as his Lordship then was) on March 21, 1996, by making the following directions : "Having heard the submissions of both sides and having regard to the materials on record, I dispose of the instant writ application by directing respondent No. 1 herein to make final valuation of the property in question after considering the objection already put in by the petitioners, herein, and also giving them an opportunity to put in any further objection which they may propose to put in within one week from this date and after giving them all reasonable opportunity of being heard, according to law and rules in force, by passing a reasoned order." Subsequent to the passing of the order by this court as aforesaid, the writ petitioners filed further objection by a letter dated March 27, 1996, in respect of the estimate of valuation relating to the said premises. On April 24, 1996, the writ petitioners also sent a letter to the concerned valuer, On April 30, 1996, the final valuation report was sent by the Valuation Officer to the writ petitioners wherefrom it appears that he valued the said premises for the period from March 31, 1985, to March 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of the valuation matter and since no personal hearing was given to the writ petitioners in compliance with the said direction of this court, it must be held that the principle of natural justice has been violated as no personal hearing was given by the Valuation Officer before making the valuation report or before making the valuation order in respect of the premises in question and, therefore, this court under article 226 of the Constitution can invoke its discretionary power even before the final order of assessment is made by the Wealth-tax Officer although it is open to the writ petitioner to challenge the valuation report or the order after the final order of assessment is passed by way of an appeal under section 23 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). In this connection, reliance was placed on the case of Uday Kaushish v. CWT [1982] 137 ITR 906 (Delhi). Mr. Bhattacharyya thereafter, relying on Schedule 111, Part B, of the relevant rules, contended that since the aforesaid rules were violated in making such valuation by the Valuation Officer, the valuation report or the order must be set aside. In support of this contention, Mr. Bhattacharyya relied on two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce and after considering such evidence as the Valuation Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Valuation Officer shall, by order in writing, estimate the value of the asset and send a copy of his order to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee. Sub-section (6) of section 16A says that on receipt of the order under sub-section (3) or sub-section (5) from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer shall, so far as the valuation of the asset in question is concerned, proceed to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate of the Valuation Officer. Chapter VI of the Act deals with appeals, revisions and references. Section 23(1)(ha) says that subject to the provision of sub-section (1A), any person objecting to any order of the Valuation Officer under section 35 having the effect of enhancing the valuation of any asset or refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under section 35 may appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment or order, as the case may be, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner. From the above, it is evident that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion matter before the Valuation Officer. Therefore, all the questions that need to be considered against the valuation report or the valuation order can be dealt with by the appellate authority. Therefore, in my view, there is an efficacious alternative remedy to the writ petitioner by way of an appeal against the final order of assessment in which the writ petitioners can very well challenge the valuation report as well as the valuation order of the Valuation Officer,, That being the position, I am of the view that there is an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under section 23 of the Act and, therefore, the writ court cannot be approached at this stage. Apart from that, the Wealth-tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment of wealth-tax and imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any order passed by the wealth-tax authorities, and, therefore, the writ petitioners cannot be permitted, to abandon the procedure framed under the Act and invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India when he had adequate remedy by way of an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). In Union of India v. Jyoti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the concerned Valuation Officer to afford an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. But it is well settled that to give "opportunity of hearing" always cannot be meant that personal hearing must be given. From the materials on record, it appears that after the order of the High Court, a further written submission was filed by the writ petitioners in which the writ petitioners cited several decisions in support of the contention, that the valuation report or the order cannot at all stand in law or on facts. It does not appear from the record that the writ petitioners in fact, prayed before the Valuation Officer that they required personal hearing in the matter. Since a written submission was filed after the order of the High Court, which was considered by the Valuation Officer at the time of passing the order of valuation, I do not think that in the present case there was any necessity to give An opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioners. Therefore, I am of the view that in the present case, the principles of natural justice were not violated by the Valuation Officer and, therefore, the writ court cannot entertain the writ application at this stage. In this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
