A writ petition is not maintainable to challenge a valuation report or order passed by the Valuation Officer under Section 16a of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, before the final order of assessment is made by the Wealth-tax Officer, as there is an efficacious alternative remedy available by way of an appeal under Section 23 of the Act.

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

( 1 ) SRI Sri Radheshyam Jew, a Hindu deity located at premises No. 31, Shibnarayan Das Lane, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as "the deity"), is the writ petitioner No. 1 and Gopal Lal Chandra, the sole shebayat of the deity is the writ petitioner No. 2 before me. They have jointly challenged the valuation report of the Valuation Officer made under Section 16a of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Learned counsel for the Revenue took a preliminary objection as to the entertain ability of this writ application at this stage, as no assessment order has yet been made by the Wealth-tax Officer in terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 16a of the Act. If this question is answered in the affirmative, then I need not go into the other questions raised by learned counsel for the; writ petitioner on the question whether the valuation report submitted by the Valuation Officer could be accepted or not. In my considered opinion, the preliminary objection of learned counsel for the Revenue must succeed as 1 find that there is no necessity to entertain this writ application at this stage in view of the admitted fact that no assessment has yet been made by the Wealth-tax Officer in terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 16a of the Act. For the purpose of deciding the preliminary objection as raised by learned counsel for the Revenue, the facts which are necessary are stated below ;

( 2 ) THE writ petitioners filed wealth-tax returns on or about November 27, 1995, for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1995-96 in respect of premises No. 17/1, Canal Street, Calcutta-790 014, amongst the other premises, viz. , premises Nos. 25 and 26, Colootola Street, Calcutta, and undivided 1/4th share in premises No. 53, Phears Lane, Calcutta. Since I am at the present stage concerned with the valuation of premises No. 17/1 Canal Street, Calcutta, I need not go into the details in respect of other premises as mentioned herein above. The premises No. 17/1, Canal Street, according to the writ petitioner, were requisitioned by the Government of West Bengal in 1943 and they were de-requisitioned by it in the year 1988, The writ petitioners have admitted in the writ application since the date of de-requisition the aforesaid premises were not let out to any person and they have remained under self-occupation of the deity. The premises No. 17/1, Canal Street, Calcutta-700 014 (hereinafter referred to as "the said premises"), comprise one-storied building with land measuring about 29 cuttahs. On or about August 11, 1995, the Wealth-tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the WTO"), referred the matter to the Valuation Officer, Income-tax Department, for making valuation of the said premises along with three other properties, viz. , 25 and 26, Colootola Street, and 53, Phears Lane, Calcutta, under Section 16a of the Act. By a letter dated August 11, 1995, the Valuation Officer sought for certain particulars of the said premises, viz. , lay out plan, full set up drawing, floor-wise detail of areas let out. proof of municipal tax paid, etc. , from the writ petitioners.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the writ petitioners stated in the writ application that the Wealth tax Officer had no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer to determine the value of the said premises under Section 16a of the Act, they, however, supplied the required information asked for by the Valuation Officer by a letter dated October 20, 1995. On or about February 29, 1996, the writ petitioners received a notice issued under Section 16a (4) of the Act estimating the value of the said premises. From a perusal of the estimate regarding the valuation of the said premises, it appears that the Valuation Officer determined the fair market value of the said premises on the basis of hypothetical rent capitalisation method from 1985-86 and land and building method from 1989-90. After receiving the estimate, the writ petitioner made submissions before the Va

Click Here to Read the rest of this document