KETAN NATVARLAL BRAHMBHATT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a declaration to declare Rule 8A(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 (for short "the Rules "), as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also called in question the legality and validity of the order dtd. 26/9/2012 passed by respondent No.3- Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, whereby the petitioner's application seeking registration as a "Registered Valuer" under Sec. 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act ") read with Rule 8A(3) of the Rules for Category-II, namely, Agricultural Lands (other than coffee, tea, rubber and cardamom plantations), came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner lacks prescribed educational qualification, namely, a Degree in Agricultural Science from a recognized University, as contemplated under Rule 8A(3) of the Rules.

(2.) The petitioner is a Civil Engineer by profession, holding a Bachelor of Engineering degree from Gujarat University. During the course of his engineering studies, the petitioner had undertaken and successfully completed the subject of "Professional Practice and Valuation" in the eighth semester of the degree programme. The petitioner has been practicing as a professional Real Estate Valuer for more than twelve years and has been duly registered as a Government Approved Valuer for immovable properties (other than agricultural lands, plantations, forests, mines and quarries) pursuant to Registration No.Cat/I/ 402/2001-2002 dtd. 20/8/2001 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-II.

(3.) On 17/4/2012, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent No.3 under Sec. 34AB of the Act read with Rule 8A(3) of the Rules seeking registration as a Registered Valuer for Category-II, namely Agricultural Lands (other than coffee, tea, rubber and cardamom plantations). The application was accompanied by all requisite documents together with the prescribed fees. However, vide order dtd. 26/9/2012, respondent No.3 rejected the said application solely on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the educational qualification prescribed under Rule 8A(3) of the Rules.