9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had prayed for a declaration that rule 2 is inapplicable to the case of the appellant and ultra vires in view of section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. On this ground, a prayer is made in the writ petition for cancelling, withdrawing, recalling and rescinding the said rule 2 and the notices issued to the appellant under rule 2 which were sought to be quashed. According to Mr. Mallick, as soon as rule 2 is omitted, the challenge to the vires of rule 2 remains no more germane to the issue. Dr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, contends that he has no quarrel with the first part of rule 2. According to him, it will appear from paragraphs 27 and 28 of the writ petition that the challenge was thrown onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition. Paragraphs 27 and 28 as aforesaid read thus : "27. Under the partnership law and partnership agreement net assets or net wealth of a firm, that is assets minus liabilities, is determined only once that is after the dissolution of the firm or on retirement or death of a partner where the partnership agreement so provides. During the subsistence of the partnership, under the partnership law, the net wealth of a firm could not be determined and is not required to be valued. During the subsistence of the partnership a partner's interest in the firm does not mean and include his future right or interest to participate in the net assets of the firm on dissolution. Therefore, rule 2 of the said Rules in so far as it requires determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and/or direction of and/or in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents and each of them to transmit and certify records of the case to this court in order that rule 2 of the said Rules and the said notices dated August 3, 1987, and August 7, 1987, for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 under the said Act may be quashed and set aside and conscionable justice may be rendered by this court. (c) A writ and/or order and/or direction of and/or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and each of them and their servants and agents to forthwith cancel, withdraw, recall and rescind the said rule 2 of the said Rules and the said notices dated August 3, 1987, and August 7, 1987, for the assessment years 1983-84, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The procedure for valuation was prescribed in rule 2 in respect of partnership firms, which has since been omitted and substituted by Schedule III. These are, admittedly, manners in which the valuation is to be made. These are procedural in nature and have been so held in the decision rendered in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485 (SC). In CWT v. Bhanwar Lal Gupta [1997] 228 ITR 650, the Rajasthan High Court had taken a view that the valuation to be made under Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is procedural in nature. However, this decision was sought to be distinguished that this relates to valuation of immovable property, which has no manner of application in respect of valuation of a partnership firm. In CWT v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Schedule III had come into force in respect of matters, which are pending adjudication. Therefore, relief in the form of quashing of the notice appears to have already been achieved. If Dr. Pal has any grievance in respect of Schedule III the same would give rise to a fresh cause of action. If the petitioner is so advised, it is open to him to challenge the said Schedule III. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to repeal, not to omission, and that too of a Central Act or regulation and not of a rule. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is to be applied having regard to the definition of "Central Act", "enactment", "regulation" and "rule" as defined in section 3(7), 3(19), 3(50) and 3(51), respectively, of the said Act. Giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity with which rule 2 is in contradiction. Section 7(1) also stood amended. But that is not under challenge. By reason of section 7(1), as it stood prior to the amendment, it cannot be concluded that such liability could be determined under rule 2. The manner prescribed even under the said process can partake of the determination under Schedule III. If there is any contradiction having regard to Schedule III, which has now been made applicable, the same would give rise to a different cause of action but the same cannot be determined here in this case and Dr. Pal also has not made out such a case here. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to address ourselves on all the points that were raised by Dr. Pal and the decisions cited by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
