TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate Assistant Commissioner. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the constitutional validity of section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as amended by the Finance Act, 1969, on the ground that it infringes articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. That petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedies available to him under the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the provisions contained in section 18(1)(a) on the ground that it is invalid and unconstitutional because it infringes the right of the petitioner under articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. It is admitted on all hands that the off ending provision has since been amended and no such dispute is likely to arise in future. Even during the period 1969-70, when the offending provision was there, the petition giving rise to the present appeal appears to be the sole petition wherein the provision of section 18(1) has been challenged. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed net wealth but which shall not exceed the amount of the assessed net wealth. Explanation .-For the purposes of clause (ii), 'assessed net wealth' shall be taken to be the net wealth assessed under section 16 as reduced by the net wealth declared in the return, if any, furnished by such person, or, as the case may be, the net wealth assessed under section 17 as reduced by (i) the net wealth, if any, assessed previously under section 16 or section 17, or (ii) the net wealth declared in the return, if any, furnished by such person under section 17, whichever is greater; (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to any wealthtax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice the amount representing the value of any assets in respect of which the particulars have been concealed or any assets or debts in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Explanation 1.- Where,- (i) the value of any assets returned by any person is less than seventy-five per cent. of the value of such asset as determined in an assessment under section 16 or section 17 (the value so assessed being referred to hereafter in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is satisfied that such person (a) in the case referred to in clause (i) of this sub-section has, prior to the issue of notice to him under sub-section (2) of section 14, voluntarily and in good faith, made full disclosure of his net wealth; and in the case referred to in clause (ii) of this sub-section has, prior to the detection by the Wealth-tax Officer of the concealment of particulars of assets or of the inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of the assets or debts in respect of which the penalty is imposable, voluntarily and in good faith, made full and true disclosure of such particulars; (b) has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment of the wealth represented by such assets; and (c) has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under this Act in respect of the relevant assessment year. (2B) An order under sub-section (2A) shall be final and shall not be called in question before any court of law or any other authority. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of sub-section (1), if in a case falling under clause (c) of that sub-section, the minimum pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thus this discretion violates article 14 of the Constitution. It was also contended that levy of penalty at the rate of 1/2 per cent. is discriminatory because the assessee who is a smaller assessee and whose wealth is assessed at 1/2 per cent. also will suffer a penalty of 1/2 per cent., whereas the other who may be a substantial assessee and pays wealth-tax at a higher rate, still the penalty which could be imposed is only 1/2 per cent. and in this manner so far as a smaller assessee is concerned, it is harsh, whereas for a substantial assessee it is rather lenient and thus is discriminatory and, therefore, contrary to the provisions contained in article 14 of the Constitution. It is clear from what has been stated earlier that the question is not at all of public importance nor is it going to affect a number of assessees as admittedly the law has been amended thereafter and the present petition is the only petition in respect of the provisions of section 18 as it stood in 1969-70. So far as the question of confiscatory nature of the provision is concerned, it is clear that the penalty has been provided at the rate of 1/2 per cent. of the net assessed wealth per month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alth assessed and if he is a bigger assessee the penalty will be 1/2 per cent. of the total wealth assessed. Thus, in the case of a smaller assessee, 1/2 per cent. of the total wealth assessed will be much less as compared to the per cent. in the case of a substantial assessee whose wealth assessed is of much higher value; thus although it is 1/2 per cent. in both the cases, as it is related to the total wealth assessed, smaller the assessee the lesser will be the penalty and richer the assessee the penalty will be higher and by no stretch of imagination this could be said to be either unreasonable or discriminatory. This penalty will be for default of each month and in this view of the matter, therefore, neither could it be contended that it is in contravention of article 19(1)(f) nor in contravention of article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala [1961] 3 SCR 77, where while examining the constitutional validity of the land tax imposed by the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955, this court struck it down on the ground that it gave a blanket power to the State to exempt any one from the oper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
