Wp(C)/11813/2010 Of V.t.mohammed v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 WP(C).NO. 11813 OF 2010 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):--------------- V.T.MOHAMMED, S/O. V.T.MOOSA, RETIRED TAHSILDAR, MELAYIL HOUSE, ALAPARAMBA P.O. ANDIYURKUNNU, PULIKKAL(VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (HQ)(TECH), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXBY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON18-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.9.2008 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 16.11.2009 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.12.2009 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2004IN W.P.(C).NO.31948/2000 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.6.2008 IN W.A.NO.1130/2005 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 28.1.2010 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 22.2.2008 EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.1.2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.3427/2008 EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.8.2009 IN W.P.(C).3427/2008 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.11813 of 2010.............................................................Dated this the 18[th] day of December, 2014 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who retired from service as a Tahsildar, on31.05.1991, preferred an application dated 01.09.2008 before the1[st] respondent for registration as an approved valuer under theWealth Tax Act. Ext.P1 is the application preferred by him beforethe 1[st] respondent. When the petitioner was not informed of thedecision of the 1[st] respondent on the said application, he madeenquiries under the Right to Information Act and was informed byExt.P3 communication dated 10.12.2009 that his application forregistration could not be considered then, on account of the factthat there was some proceedings that were pending against him inconnection with allegations that were raised against him while hewas in Government service. The petitioner treated the saidcommunication as an order rejecting his application and thuspreferred this writ petition challenging the stand of the firstrespondent in rejecting the application preferred by him, withouteven affording him an opportunity of being heard prior to the saiddecision. In the writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to register his name as an approved valuer underSection 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act 1957. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondentwherein it is clarified that Ext.P1 application submitted by thepetitioner has not been rejected till date, and that the application isstill pending without taking any decision thereon, since therespondents are awaiting the final decision in the proceedingsinitiated against the petitioner in respect of his services under theGovernment. It is also pointed out that the respondents areawaiting a clarification from the District Collector as to whetherthe post of Tahsildar could be considered as equivalent to thecategory of posts which are mentioned in the Wealth Tax Rules asposts, the incumbents of which can be considered, for the purposesof granting registration as approved valuer. In otherwords, the 1[st]respondent is awaiting clarification from the District Collector onan aspect which would determine the eligibility of the petitioner forregistration as an approved valuer. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of thecase as also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the viewthat insofar as it is the specific stand of the respondents that the application preferred by the petitioner for registration as anapproved valuer has not been rejected till date, and is pendingconsideration, the present writ petition which proceeds on theassumption that the application preferred by the petitioner hasbeen rejected is misconceived. Resultantly, leaving open the rightof the petitioner to challenge any adverse orders passed againsthim, on the application preferred by him before the 1[st] respondent,the present writ petition is dismissed as premature. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns