Manish Chunilal Shah v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad - Iii & 3 Other(S

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16943 of 2017 =============================================MANISH CHUNILAL SHAH VersusCHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD - III & 3 other(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4SERVED BY RPAD (N)(6) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 17/07/2019 ORAL ORDER 1. At the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that on account of some changes in the year 2015 on the basis of Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Telecommunications, which relate to the educational qualification to hold the post which is superior service under the Central Government in the filed of Civil Engineering, Architecture or Town Planning, the petitioner would like to approach the Income TaxDepartment afresh without referring to the impugned orders in this petition, so that his fresh claim on the basis of his existing education / experience can be considered in light of the Office Memorandum of 2015. that on account of some changes in the year 2015 on the basis of Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Telecommunications, which relate to the educational qualification to hold the post which is superior service under the Central Government in the filed of Civil Engineering, Architecture or Town Planning, the petitioner would like to approach the Income TaxDepartment afresh without referring to the impugned orders in this petition, so that his fresh claim on the basis of his existing education / experience can be considered in light of the Office Memorandum of 2015. 2. Learned Advocate for the Department discloses the reservation to the application of OM as according to her, the same pertains to the instances of promotion. reservation to the application of OM as according to her, the same pertains to the instances of promotion. 3. However, without entering into the merits, it would be appropriate to accept the request of learned Advocate for the petitioner to file an application for registration as a Valuer under Section-34 (AB) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and the same be considered afresh without referring to the earlier decision of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-III. Upon such application, the decision be taken expeditiously preferably within a period of four months.appropriate to accept the request of learned Advocate for the petitioner to file an application for registration as a Valuer under Section-34 (AB) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and the same be considered afresh without referring to the earlier decision of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-III. Upon such application, the decision be taken expeditiously preferably within a period of four months. 4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. The Court has not entered into the merits of the case. has not entered into the merits of the case. Direct service is permitted. PARESH SOMPURA (A.Y. KOGJE, J)