1981 (3) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... isclosed in the books did not reflect the correct value of the plant and machinery and by, a letter dated November 12, 1979, he directed the second respondent herein to value the plant and machinery and air-conditioning machines installed in the factory, for purposes of wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1976-77. The appellants, who are partners of the firm, filed Writ Petitions Nos. 2606 to 2609 of 1980 challenging the direction given by the first respondent to the second respondent to value the plant and machinery and other electrical installations for purposes of making wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1976-77. . The main contention of the appellants in the writ petitions is that the firm is not an assessee under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nying the relief claimed in the writ petitions and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by not permitting them to proceed with the valuation of the assets of the partnership firm pending an adjudication of the issue raised in all these writ petitions. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that on May 2, 19 80, a telegram was received from the appellants stating that a writ petition had been filed challenging the reference to the valuer under s. 16A of the W.T. Act and requesting the Department to stay all further proceedings and on enquiry it was learnt that though the writ petitions were admitted, there was no order of stay, and in view of s. 17A(1)(b) of the W.T. Act, the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment y .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellants is, that s. 16A of the W.T. Act cannot be made applicable in the case of a firm and the direction given by the first respondent to the second respondent to value the assets of the partnership firm is invalid. When the adjudication of this main issue is pending in the writ petitions, it may not be proper for the second respondent to proceed with the valuation of the assets of the partnership firm, as that would amount to virtually conceding the claim of the respondents that s. 16A of the W.T Act can be resorted to for valuing the assets of partnership firm. Further, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents by restraining them from proceeding with the valuation of the assets of the partnership firm during the pendency of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X