BALWANT RAI AND ANR vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

Facts

The petitioners, Balwant Rai and another, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the issuance of a Registration Certificate as Valuer of Immovable Property under Section 34-AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, read with Rule 8-A of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957. The respondents were the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another. The respondents' counsel presented communications dated 02.02.2021 and 25.03.2021, indicating that the requisite registration had already been granted to petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2, respectively. Consequently, the respondents argued that the petition had become infructuous. The petitioners' counsel did not dispute this but stated that the communications gave rise to a fresh grievance.

Held

The Court noted that the respondents' counsel had presented communications dated 02.02.2021 and 25.03.2021, confirming that the requisite registration as Valuer of Immovable Property had already been granted to petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2, respectively. The respondents argued that this rendered the present writ petition infructuous. While the petitioners' counsel did not dispute the fact of registration, they submitted that the order granting registration gave rise to a fresh grievance. The Court, acknowledging this, granted the petitioners liberty to impugn the said order/communication in accordance with law by way of an appropriate petition. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition seeking directions for the issuance of a Registration Certificate as Valuer of Immovable Property under Section 34-AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, read with Rule 8-A of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, has become infructuous, given that the registration has already been granted. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners' counsel acknowledged that the registration had been granted but submitted that the communications giving this information gave rise to a fresh grievance. Revenue's Contention: The respondents' counsel contended that the petition had become infructuous as the requisite registration had already been done, as evidenced by communications dated 02.02.2021 and 25.03.2021.