9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them are the same, though the learned counsel addressed the same arguments in different forms. The material facts giving rise to these petitions are that all the three petitioners held nazul lands on lease and had made constructions thereon during the subsistence of the leases. It is alleged that the period of their leases had expired and their terms had not been renewed and consequently the petitioners had no right left in them, except the right to remove the malwa of the constructions existing on such properties. According to the petitioners, the lands which were held by them under the leases whose terms had expired and which had become liable to resumption by the State Govt. are not " assets " within the meaning of s. 2(e) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing documents filed by the assessee relevant to the valuation of the asset are sent herewith." The note indicating the grounds on which the WTO formed his opinion is in the following terms: "The Albert Road property has been valued at only 10 times of the rental income which appeared to be on the lower side keeping in view the acute shortage at Allahabad increasing rent (sic). While capitalising the value on rental basis the assessee has not considered the value of land." From the petition filed by the petitioner, Bireshwar Mookerji, it appears that the assessee had not filed any estimate by a registered valuer. In Civil Misc. Writ No. 936 of 1975 and in Civil Misc. Writ No. 483 of 1976, the WTO, B-Ward, Allahabad, passed ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that clearly the nazul properties of which the petitioners were the lessees and whose terms of leases had expired had become liable to revert to the State Govt. and, consequently, the subject-matter of the leases had ceased to be " assets " within the meaning of s. 2(e) of the Act and the petitioners were entitled merely to the malwa of the constructions standing thereon. It was submitted that a reference under s. 16A of the Act could be made by the WTO only for a valuation of " assets " and hence his reference was beyond the scope of s. 16A(1). It was urged that the valuation of the properties in respect of which references have been made as estimated by the Valuation Officers were binding on him and, consequently, writ petitions under ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set out the circumstances on the basis of which he had formed his opinion. A reference to the Valuation Officer under s. 16A(1) is merely an interlocutory stage during the course of assessment proceedings as is clear from the use of the words " for the purpose of making an assessment " occurring therein. The reference gives rise to proceedings before the Valuation Officer. Sub-section (2) of s. 16A requires the Valuation Officer to serve the assessee with notice requiring him to produce or cause to be produced on the specified date such accounts, etc., as might be required by him for the purpose of estimating the value of assets forming the subject-matter of the reference. If on examining such records, etc., the officer comes to the conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The principle audi alteram partem (hear both sides), in our opinion, applies only to proceedings in which is involved some element of decision making which may adversely affect the party concerned. The pre-requisite to, the application of the principle of the right to be heard is that the proceedings should require the resolution of some controversy which might jeopardize, some legal right of a party. The proceedings in which such right is asserted must entail some enquiry resulting in some order which has at least a rudiment or millieu of adjudicatory action. On p. 127 (4th Edn.) of Administrative Law, Garner poses the question: "When must natural justice be observed? " and answers it by the statement " perhaps when the rights of an indiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, are " assets " or not, subject to taxation. The opinion of the Valuation Officer in this respect does not affect the power of the WTO to determine this question. At the stage when assessment proceedings re-commence before the WTO after the Valuation Officer has passed an order under sub-s. (3) or (5) of s. 16A, the petitioners have a right to urge and persuade that the valuations given by the Valuation Officer are in respect of properties which are not " assets " and hence not taxable. Neither any statutory provision nor any principle of law justifies the view that the WTO should proceed with the assessment piecemeal and decide at an intermediate stage as to whether a particular property is an " asset " or not and hence liable to taxati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
