VRINDAVAN GOVERDHAN LAL PITTIE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has challenged an order of penalty imposed against the petitioner by the Wealth-tax Officer at the rate of 1/2 per cent of the total wealth assessed for every month of default and out of seven months' default, a penalty imposed was for four months equal to Rs. 6,784/-. The petitioner had sought for extension of time for three months which was granted and, thereafter filed the return four months after the period extended by the Wealth-tax Officer. This order of the Wealth-tax Officer was maintained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the 4th respondent the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the constitutional validity of S. 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 as amended by the Finance Act, 1969 on the ground that it infringes Arts. 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. That petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedies available to him under the Act. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the provisions contained in S. 18(1)(a) on the ground that it is invalid as unconstitutional because it infringes the right of the petitioner under Arts. 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is admitted on all hands that the offending provision has since been amended and no such dispute is likely to arise in future. Even during the period 1969-70 when the offending provision was there, the petition giving rise to the present appeal appears to be the sole petition wherein the provision of S. 18(1) has been challenged. The question involved in the present case is, therefore, only of an academic interest;

(3.) Section 18 of the Wealth-tax Act as it stood at the relevant time reads: