V.T.MOHAMMED vs. 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 TAX BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).NO. 11813 OF 2010 (B) 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 19.11.2004 IN 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. ............................................................. ............................................................. Dated this the 18th day of December, 2014 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who retired from service as a Tahsildar, on 31.05.1991, preferred an application dated 01.09.2008 before the 1st respondent for registration as an approved valuer under the Wealth Tax Act. Ext.P1 is the application preferred by him before the 1st respondent. When the petitioner was not informed of the decision of the 1st respondent on the said application, he made enquiries under the Right to Information Act and was informed by Ext.P3 communication dated 10.12.2009 that his application for registration could not be considered then, on account of the fact that there was some proceedings that were pending against him in connection with allegations that were raised against him while he was in Government service. The petitioner treated the said communication as an order rejecting his application and thus preferred this writ petition challenging the stand of the first respondent in rejecting the application preferred by him, without even affording him an opportunity of being heard prior to the said decision. In the writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to

the respondents to register his name as an approved valuer under Section 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act 1957. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein it is clarified that Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner has not been rejected till date, and that the application is still pending without taking any decision thereon, since the respondents are awaiting the final decision in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in respect of his services under the Government. It is also pointed out that the respondents are awaiting a clarification from the District Collector as to whether the post of Tahsildar could be considered as equivalent to the category of posts which are mentioned in the Wealth Tax Rules as posts, the incumbents of which can be considered, for the purposes of granting registration as approved valuer. In otherwords, the 1st respondent is awaiting clarification from the District Collector on an aspect which would determine the eligibility of the petitioner for registration as an approved valuer. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that insofar as it is the specific stand of the respondents that the

application preferred by the petitioner for registration as an approved valuer has not been rejected till date, and is pending consideration, the present writ petition which proceeds on the assumption that the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected is misconceived. Resultantly, leaving open the right of the petitioner to challenge any adverse orders passed against him, on the application preferred by him before the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is dismissed as premature. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns