# Steel Tubes Limited and others v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Majdoor Sabha and

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 341
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-16
- **Case number:** Wealth Tax Reference No. 128 of 1982
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/steel-tubes-limited-and-others-v-gujarat-steel-tubes-majdoor-sabha-and-40098
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Wealth Tax Act- Section 17 (1) (G)- if the
assessing officer had reason to believe
that net wealth of a person has escaped
assessment due to non disclosure fully
and truly of all material facts necessary
for the assessment of his net wealth, he
could issue the notice for reassessment-
In the present case- all the conditions for
reassessing
of
the
assessee
as
prescribed under section 17 (1) (a) of
the Wealth Tax Act, existed. Hence in our
opinion the reassessment notice was
fully justified.

Held -Para 9

If the assessing officer had reason to
believe that net wealth of a person has
escaped
assessment
due
to
non
disclosure fully and truly of all material
facts necessary for the assessment of his
net wealth, he could issue the notice for
reassessment. In the present case all the
conditions
for
reassessing
of
the
assessee as prescribed under section 17
(1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act existed.
Hence in our opinion the reassessment
notice was fully justified.
Case law referred:
Vol.221 I.T.R. page 538

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sujeet Kumar Singh and others V. Union of India and others
341
Commissioner, Assam State Housing Vs.
Purna Chandra Bora and another (1998) 6
 SCC-619
the
appointment
of
the
petitioners was made on temporary basis
and a such they had no right to the past
and as such the O.A. was without merit
and was dismissed.

13. The law is well settled in Gujarat
Steel Tubes Limited and others Vs.
Gujarat Steel Tubes Majdoor Sabha and
others, (1980) 2 SCC-593, Ashwani
Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar
(1997) 2 SCC-1, Narsingh Pal Vs. Union
of India, AIR 2000 SC-1401 and AIR
2001 SC-102 Nazira Bugum Vs. State of
Assam that temporary employees have no
right to the post and they can have no
grievance as their appointments are only
temporary. We have gone through the
judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal and do not find any illegality in
the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
At the most the petitioners could have
been given preference, had they also
applied for screening or had participated
in the selection process, which they have
not done.

14. In view of the facts stated above
we find no merit in this writ petition and
it is accordingly, dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Wealth Tax Reference No. 128 of 1982

Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania (Individual),
Kanpur

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vikram Gulati

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal
Sri A.N. Mahajan

Wealth Tax Act- Section 17 (1) (G)- if the
assessing officer had reason to believe
that net wealth of a person has escaped
assessment due to non disclosure fully
and truly of all material facts necessary
for the assessment of his net wealth, he
could issue the notice for reassessment-
In the present case- all the conditions for
reassessing
of
the
assessee
as
prescribed under section 17 (1) (a) of
the Wealth Tax Act, existed. Hence in our
opinion the reassessment notice was
fully justified.

Held -Para 9

If the assessing officer had reason to
believe that net wealth of a person has
escaped
assessment
due
to
non
disclosure fully and truly of all material
facts necessary for the assessment of his
net wealth, he could issue the notice for
reassessment. In the present case all the
conditions
for
reassessing
of
the
assessee as prescribed under section 17
(1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act existed.
Hence in our opinion the reassessment
notice was fully justified.
Case law referred:
Vol.221 I.T.R. page 538

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. The following question has been
referred to this court at the instance of the
assessee under section 27 (1):-

"Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the appellate
tribunal was justified in holding that the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
342
reopening of the assessment under section
17(1)(a) was valid in law"

The dispute relates to the two
assessment years namely 1969-70 and
1971-72.

2. The original assessment of the
assessee, who is an individual, was
reopened under Section 17 (1) (a) of the
Wealth Tax Act on the ground that in the
net wealth earlier assessed, the wealth of
Rs.20,500/- escaped assessment. The facts
in a narrow compass:

3. The assessee took a loan of
Rs.20500/- from the Life Insurance
Corporation on the security of life policy
on 23rd March, 1966, which was
deposited in the fixed deposit with
Hindustan Commercial Bank. He claimed
exemption on the said amount in his
wealth tax return, which was allowed by
the Wealth Tax Officer. However, the
said assessment was reopened and an
addition was made of Rs.20,500/- in the
net wealth of the assessee by the Wealth
Tax Officer by the order dated 28
February, 1979 in respect of both
assessment years by separate orders on
identical
pleas.
The
aforesaid
reassessment orders were set aside in
appeal
by
the
Appellate
Assistant
Commissioner of Wealth Tax by order
dated 20.3.1980 on the finding that it was
not a case of non disclosure of material
facts and as such the notice under section
17 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act was held
bad.

4. The department filed two appeals
before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
for the aforesaid two assessment years
which were allowed by a common order
dated 29.1.1981.

5. Aggrieved against the order of the
Tribunal at the instance of the assessee,
the above reference was made to the High
Court.

6. We have heard Sri Vikram Gulati
Advocate for the assessee and Sri Bharat
Ji Agarwal Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri A.N. Mahajan for the Income Tax
Department.

7. The tribunal has found that mere
mention that the amount of Rs.20,500/-
was a loan from the L.I.C. does not
amount to disclosure of the fact that this
loan was secured against the life policy of
the assessee which was exempt from
Wealth Tax. In the wealth tax return there
was a specific requirement that such debt
should not be claimed as deduction. If the
assessee claims such a deduction without
mentioning the relevant fact that the debt
was secured against the life policy of the
assessee, it amounts to non disclosure of
the relevant materials for the purposes of
assessment.

8. Sri Bharatji Agrawal has placed
reliance upon the judgement of the
Supreme Court reported in Vol. 221 ITR
page 538 Sri Krishna Private Limited etc.
Vs. I.T.O. and others. It has been held by
the Supreme Court that every disclosure is
not and cannot be treated to be a true and
full disclosure. A disclosure may be a
false one or a true one. It may be a full
disclosure or it may not be. A partial
disclosure may very often be a misleading
one. What is required is a full and true
disclosure of all material facts necessary
for making assessment for that year.

9. The Tribunal has recorded a
specific finding that the loan was secured
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania (Individual) V. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur
343
against the life policy of the assessee
which was exempt from the wealth Tax
but this was not disclosed in the wealth
tax return. Only this much was mentioned
in the return that the amount of
Rs.20,500/- was a loan from the L.I.C.
Till the assessment year 1988-99, if the
assessing officer had reason to believe
that net wealth of a person has escaped
assessment due to non disclosure fully
and truly of all material facts necessary
for the assessment of his net wealth, he
could issue the notice for reassessment. In
the present case all the conditions for
reassessing of the assessee as prescribed
under section 17 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax
Act existed. Hence in our opinion the
reassessment notice was fully justified.

10. In view of the above, we answer
the above question in the affirmative i.e.
against the assessee and in favour of the
department.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38976 of 2002

Moti Lal

...Petitioner
Versus
State
of
U.P.
through
Secretary,
Irrigation Department and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Misra
Sri Shiveesh Gopesh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226- the
case of the petitioner is squarely covered
by Regulation 370 of Civil Service
Regulations- it gives a right to the
petitioner to get pension even assuming
his resignation is accepted in the month
of December, 1985- the view of the
respondents that the petitioner has put
in less than 20 years of service, is
rejected. ( Held in para)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. Petitioner by means of the present
writ petition has prayed for the following
reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to pay the pension and other
retrial benefits "like gratuity", provident
fund, G.P.F. etc" to the petitioner.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to pay the interest at the
current rate on the amount of pension and
retrial benefits computed till the date of
actual payment.

iii. Issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction which this Hon'ble
court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.

iv. Allow the writ petition with
costs in favour of the petitioner."

2. The case of the petitioner, as setup in the writ petition, is that the
petitioner was appointed as Tube-well
Operator in the month of June, 1962 but
under the state of mental imbalance he
resigned on 4.12.1985 which though he
purports to have subsequently withdrawn.
But according to the statement made in