BHARAT HARI SINGHANIA INDIVIDUAL Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application for interim order in terms of prayer (f) of the petition has since been asked for in connection with this appeal. A preliminary objection has since been raised by Mr. Mallick that this writ petition has become infructuous in view of the omission of Rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules which been challenged in this writ petition as ultra vires, invalid and inoperative. In elaborating his submission, he contended that the appellant had prayed for a declaration that Rule 2 is inapplicable to the case of the appellant and ultra vires in view of Section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. On this ground, a prayer is made in the writ petition for cancelling, withdrawing, recalling and rescinding the said Rule 2 and the notices issued to the appellant under Rule 2 which were sought to be quashed. According to Mr. Mallick, as soon as Rule 2 is omitted, the challenge to the vires of Rule 2 remains no more germane to the issue.

(2.) Dr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, contends that he has no quarrel with the first part of Rule 2. According to him, it will appear from paragraphs 27 and 28 of the writ petition that the challenge was thrown only to the latter part of Rule 2 and not to the first part. He contended further that the first part of Rule 2 confers a right that had already accrued to his client. This accrued right cannot be taken away by reason of omission of Rule 2. He also contended that Schedule III has imposed new liability and tends to take away the right accrued under Rule 2. Therefore, a part of the statute contained substantive law creating right and liability while another part is procedural. If it is so, in that event, omission of this rule will not take away the right and liability in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. He had cited many decisions on this account. He also cited many decisions on the question that a right has accrued to him under Rule 2. On this ground, he had pointed out that the writ petition has not become infructuous.

(3.) We have heard the respective learned counsel and gone through the decisions cited. Dr. Pal had, in fact, elaborated his submission during two days on various aspects and addressed the court on the merits of the case. The moot point he had advanced is that Rule 2 was not purely procedural, neither Schedule III is a procedural law and, therefore, omission of Rule 2 will not deprive the petitioner of his rights and absolve the liabilities and hence the writ petition requires determination on the merits and cannot be dismissed as infructuous.