1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.828 OF 1991 Hill Properties Ltd & Anr .. Petitioner versus Mr.Bharat Tripathi & ors., .. Respondents ... Mr. Harvinder Toor with Mr.Anoshak Daver and Mr.Yuvraj K. Singh i/b Crawford Bailey & Co. for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for respondents. CORAM : F. I. REBELLO AND D.G. KARNIK, JJ DATED : 7th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Ferdino I. Rebello, J) 1. The petitioner had approached this court and had amongst others sought a relief to challenge the constitutionality of section 40 of the Finance Act 1983. A challenge to the said provision was in issue before the Supreme Court in Padam Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) 909 of 1989 which petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. In the light of that, learned counsel does not press the challenge to the constitutionality of the said provision. 2 2. The other grievance of the petitioner was that the Valuation Officer had to follow Rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules in valuing the property which the Valuation Officer failed to do. This issue had come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup And Sons, 210 ITR 886 where the Supreme Court accepted the contention as now raised by the petitioners herein. The Court held that the mode of valuation embodied in Rule 1BB must be followed. 3. In the light of the above, this petition can be allowed on merits in as much as the Assessing Officer can now be asked to proceed to complete the assessment for the Assessment Year 1986-87 and 1987-88, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sharvan Kumar (Supra). 4. For the aforesaid reasons, rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) which reads as under:- (B) that in the event of it being held that the 1st Petitioner is chargeable to tax under Section 40 of the Finance Act, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct that the provisions of Rule 1 BB are applicable; 3 In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. Assessment to be completed within six months on the petitioner serving a copy of this judgment on the Assessing Officer. Copy of the judgment should be served at any rate not later than four weeks from today. (D.G. KARNIK, J) (F.I. REBELLO, J)