DR. KARAN SINGH versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ANR.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1069 · Decided: 20-12-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
1069 
DR. KARAN SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU & l<ASHMIR & ANR. 
qECEMBER 20, 1985 
[v.o. TULZAPllRKAR AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ. J 
B 
Wealth Tax Act, 1957, s.S(l)(xiv) - Claim for exempt.ion in 
respect of jewellery and valuable articles of personal use lying 
in Toshakhana -
Assessee in wealth tax proceedings claiming 
ownership - State contesting the claim - CBDT informing assessee 
to arrange physical inspection -
High Court approached with 
C 
application for inspection - Refusal of inspection by High Court 
- Validity of - Necessity for inspection indicated. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court 
claiming ownership and title of six boxes containing jewellery 
and other valuable articles lying in Srinagar Toshakhana. 
These 
were kept under lock and seal of the Commissioner appointed by 
the High Court. The petition was the result of two matters pend-
ing before the Government of India: (1) Whether the appellant was 
the owner of the jewellery or other valuable articles of personal 
use lying in those boxes on the ground that the properties are 
heirlooms, and (ii) whether exemption in respect of such items of 
properties as heirlooms under s.S(l)(xiv) of the Wealth Tax Act 
in wealth tax assessment proceedings of the appellant as HUF was 
available to him or not. Pursuant to a request and the suggestion 
of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to have physical inspection 
of the 
items in question by the Members (W.T.&J) 
alongwith 
experts to establish whether the properties are heirlooms or not, 
an application was accordingly moved before the High Court for 
inspection of the jewellery and other articles. The High Court 
dismissed the application on the ground that no useful purpose 
will be served to grant inspection. 
Being aggrieved, the appellant appealed to this Court. The 
D 
E 
F 
appeal was opposed by counsel for the Respondents on the grounds 
G 
(i} that the appellant's claim of ownership or title to these 
items has been refuted in the counter-affidavit that had been 
filed in the main Writ Petition where property has been claimed 
to be State property; (2) that unless the appellant showed some 
prima facie title to the property in question, inspection would 
..., be premature and uncalled ·for, and (3) that the writ petition 
itself was not maintainable· in view of Article 363 (1) of the 
H 
Constitution. 
1070 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R. " 
A 
Allowing the appeal, 
llKll>: l(i) The order dated July 20, 
1985 is clearly 
erroneous, and inspection sought ought to have been granted. The 
six boxes containing the jewellery and other valuable articles 
lying in Srinagar Toshakhana shall be opened for the purpose of 
B 
inspection by the Member, Central Board of Direct Taxes (WT&J) • 
who will be accompanied by the Director General of Archaelogical 
Survey of India, Director Antiques, Director National Museum and 
Approved Valuers of Jewellery for determining whether any and if 
so what items constitute heirlooms or articles of personal use of 
the appellant and his family. Such inspection will be taken in 
the presence of the appellant's representative as also a 
c 
representative of the State Government but such representatives 
shall not work on the panel of the Inspection Committee but may 
render assistance as may be necessary. [1073 E-G] 
D 
(ii) The relevance and necessity of such in~pection in the 
instant case cannot be disputed. The main issue arising between 
the parties is whether the jewellery and other valuable articles 
of personal use contained in the six boxes lying in Srinagar 
Toshakhana are heirlooms of the appellant and his family as 
claimed by 
him 
or not. 
Such 
inspection by 
experts will 
unquestionably facilitate its determination, [1072 B-<:] 
2. Questions of maintainability of the writ petition and 
E 
appellant's title to the property in question would undoubtedly • 
be gone into at the final hearing of the writ petition but it 
cannot be gainsaid that the inspection by experts will be useful 
for determination of the appellant's title to the property. At 
this · stage no one can proceed on the assumption that the 
preliminary objection as regards maintainability will n~cessarily 
F 
be upheld. Moreover, the assessment order for the 3 assessment 
years, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 though made on protective 
basis and subject to final valuation of the assets, clearly show 
~ 
that the Wealth Tax Authorities, and the CBDT are treating the 
G 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.