9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained in Chapter VII-B of the Act were also amended with effect from June 1, 1988, and section 34AE was inserted requiring the existing registered valuers to apply afresh. According to the petitioner, as he was not a valuer registered immediately before June 1, 1988, having been granted registration on January 20, 1986, he did not fall within the category of these persons who were required to apply afresh for continuation of their registration as valuer. However, on the advice of the local Income-tax Department and by way of abundant caution, the petitioner sent an application to respondent No. 1 for renewal of the registration of the petitioner as a valuer. Where upon, the petitioner received a letter dated May 24, 1989, from respondent No. 1 informing the petitioner that his application for renewal has been rejected because his income for the last ten years was less than Rs. 50,000 per annum and, therefore, he did not fit in the category evolved by the Board in this behalf. According to the petitioner, the order rejecting his application on the basis of the income is against the law and the Rules. The Rules framed under the Act do not provide for any criterion pertaining to mini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 and 1984, the period during which the petitioner was outside India. Accordingly, the petitioner, on December 8, 1987, furnished the desired information. However, the Board did not register the petitioner as a valuer despite repeated reminders by the petitioner which have been filed as annexures K-1 to K-4 with the petition. Finally, on May 21, 1988, the petitioner approached the Board and the Union of India, through a letter and personally when the latter was on tour to Indore. Thereafter, to the surprise of the petitioner, respondent No. 1, by his letter dated July 4, 1989, informed the petitioner that the application of the petitioner has been rejected because the income of the petitioner is less than Rs. 50,000 per annum. The petitioner, thereupon, made a representation for reviewing the order of rejection, but the review application was not decided till the filing of this petition. According to the petitioner, the order impugned rejecting the application of the petitioner is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He has, therefore, sought the issuance of a writ against respondent No. 1 to grant registration to the petitioner for whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required for registration, for at least three years, the practice of the applicant should not be less than Rs. 15,000 per annum, and if he has been a partner of a firm, the proportionate share of the gross receipts should not be less than Rs. 15,000. The Board, after lapse of 11 years, raised the aforesaid monetary criteria from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 50,000 in view of the rising cost of living index. Therefore, the decision is not unreasonable. Respondent No. 1 has, therefore, acted on the criteria fixed by the Board and, as the case of the petitioner did not fall within the said criteria, his application was rejected. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner is neither arbitrary nor capricious. In reply to the petitioner in M. P. No. 1077 of 1989 also, the petition has been resisted on the ground that, initially on July 8, 1977, the Board had fixed the criteria for implementation of the Rules for registration of the valuers wherein an income of Rs. 15,000 per year for the three years out of the five years of practice was one of the conditions for eligibility for registration and that mandatory criteria has been revised by the Board after 11 years and the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the authorities to prescribe different qualifications for valuers of different classes of assets, and, therefore, a person who possesses the qualifications as prescribed can be registered as a valuer. Now, the word "prescribed" shall always be construed to mean "prescribed by rules" by the rule-making authority. When the Legislature uses the word "prescribed" in an enactment, it is always a normal expression for conferring a power on the executive to make rules. Therefore, the qualification of the valuers has to be in accordance with the Rules framed under the Act. Now, Rules have been framed by the Central Board of Revenue in exercise of the powers conferred by section 46 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, wherein rule 8-A prescribes the qualifications for registration of registered valuers. The provisions of rule 8A(1) say that, for the purpose of subsection (2) of section 34AB, the qualifications for registration as valuers of different classes of assets shall be as specified in sub-rules (2) to (11). Sub-rule (2) of rule 8A provides for the qualifications of a valuer of immovable property. The rule reads as under : "8A(1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 34AB, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ield of engineering, architecture or town-planning or he must be a person formerly employed under the Government as a Gazetted Officer or in a post under any other employer carrying a remuneration of not less than Rs. 2,000 per month and either must have retired or resigned from such employment after completing service of ten years as valuer, architect or town-planner or in the field of construction of buildings, designing of structures or development of land or as a professor, reader, lecturer in a university or college or any other institution preparing students for a degree in civil engineering, architecture or town-planning and, if he has resigned or retired from such employment, the total teaching experience should not be less than ten years or he must have been in practice as a consulting engineer, surveyor or architect for period of less than ten years and must have, in the opinion of the Board, acquired sufficient experience in any of the fields of valuation of buildings and urban lands, quantity surveying in building construction, architectural or structural designing of buildings or town-planning or construction of buildings or development of lands. As such, it is manif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as are applicable to the persons applying for fresh registration shall be applicable in the case of persons who are already registered as valuers and who apply afresh under the provisions of section 34AE of the Act. In the reply, it has been suggested that the experience of the petitioner, Deole, is not in accordance with the Rules, but we fail to see how such a plea has been put forward by respondent No. 1. As regards the experience, the basic qualification is that a person should be a practising engineer for not less than 10 years. The petitioner is practising as an architect since 1970 and as such prima facie his experience was of about 18 years at the time of application for registration as a valuer under the Act in the year 1988. In the result, the petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed, The order of respondent No. 1 rejecting the applications of the petitioners for being registered as valuers under the Act are quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for registration as valuers in accordance with the provisions contained in rule 8A(2) of the Rules framed under the Act and should decide their applications as expeditiousl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
