{"id":215154,"date":"1994-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994"},"modified":"2018-06-21T12:40:22","modified_gmt":"2018-06-21T07:10:22","slug":"c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994","title":{"rendered":"C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (6) 623, \t JT 1994 (6)\t446<\/div>\n
Author: M Venkatachalliah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkatachalliah, M.N.(Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nC.W.T.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHARVAN KUMAR SWARUP & SONS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ)\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ)\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (6) 623\t  JT 1994 (6)\t446\n 1994 SCALE  (4)413\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nVENKATACHALIAH,\t C.J.-\tIn these appeals and  special  leave
\npetitions   brought  up\t by  the  Revenue  the\t short\t but
\ninteresting question that arises is
\n625<\/span>
\nwhether\t Rule  1-BB  of\t the Wealth Tax\t Rules,\t 1957  is  a
\nprovision which affects and alters the substantive rights or
\nis  merely procedural.\tThe further sequential\tand  cognate
\nquestion is whether the Rule is attracted to all proceedings
\npending\t at its enactment.  The said Rule 1-BB concerns\t the
\nmode  of valuation of house-property wholly or\tmainly\tused
\nfor  residential purposes, for the purposes of\tascertaining
\nthe net wealth under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.\n<\/p>\n
2.Section  3  of  the  Wealth Tax  Act\tis  the\t charging
\nsection.   It seeks to bring to charge for every  assessment
\nyear  the net wealth on the corresponding valuation date  of
\nevery  individual, Hindu undivided family and company.\t The
\nexpression  “net wealth” is defined in Section 2(m)  of\t the
\nAct.  Section 2(q) defines the “valuation date”.  Section  4
\nenumerates  the\t assets\t to be included\t in  computing\t‘net
\nwealth’.   Sections 5 and 6 exempt certain assets  in  India
\nand outside from being included in computing the net wealth.\n<\/p>\n
3.Section  7   and  this  provision  is\t of  particular
\nrelevance here speaks as to how the value of the assets\t has
\nto  be\tdetermined.  Section 7(1), as it  stood\t during\t the
\nrelevant  period,  i.e.,  prior to 1-4-1989  when  it  stood
\nsubstituted  by\t the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment)  Act,\t1989
\nwith effect from 1-4-1989 provided:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “7.  (1)\tSubject to any rules  made  in\tthis
\n\t      behalf,  the  value of any asset,\t other\tthan
\n\t      cash,  for the purposes of this Act, shall  be
\n\t      estimated to be the price which in the opinion
\n\t      of  the Wealth Tax Officer it would  fetch  if
\n\t      sold  in\tthe  open market  on  the  valuation
\n\t      date.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.The Central Board of Revenue in pursuance of the  rule-
\nmaking power conferred by Section 46 of the Act\t promulgated
\nrules  known  as  the Wealth Tax Rules,\t 1957.\t These\twere
\namended\t from time to time and Rule 1 BB with which we\tare
\nnow  concerned\t came to be inserted  by  the  Wealth  Tax
\n(Amendment)  Rules,  1979 with effect  from  1-4-1979.\t The
\nrelevant part of the Rule reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1-BB. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (1)
\n\t      of  Section 7, the value of a house  which  is
\n\t      wholly or mainly used for residential purposes
\n\t      shall  be\t the  aggregate\t of  the   following
\n\t      amounts, namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)the  amount arrived at by  multiplying\t the
\n\t      net  maintainable rent in respect of the\tpart
\n\t      of the house used for residential purposes  by
\n\t      the fraction 100\/8; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)the amount arrived at by multiplying the
\n\t      net maintainable rent inrespect\t of    the
\n\t      remaining\t part of the house, if any,  by\t the
\n\t      fraction100\/9:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided that in relation to a house which  is
\n\t      built  on leasehold land, this sub-rule  shall
\n\t      have  effect as if for the fraction  100\/8  in
\n\t      clause (a) or as the case may be, the fraction
\n\t      of  100\/9 in clause (b), the  fractions  100\/9
\n\t      and    100\/10,\trespectively,\t had\tbeen
\n\t      substituted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Sub-rule  (2)(a) defines the expression “gross\tmaintainable
\nrent”;\tsub-rule  (2)(b)  defines “House”  as  including  an
\nindependent residential unit and sub-\n<\/p>\n
626<\/span><\/p>\n
rule  (2)(c) the expression “net maintainable  rent”.\tSub-
\nrule (5), however, envisages a departure from the regime  of
\nsub-rule (1) and provides that where the Wealth Tax Officer,
\nhaving regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is
\nof  the\t opinion  that it is not practicable  to  apply\t the
\nprovisions of therules\tto such a case, he may apply  the
\nrule with the previous approval of the Inspecting  Assistant
\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The  principal question in these cases is whether\tthis
\nrule  is  a  provision of  substantive\tlaw,  not  expressly
\nrendered applicable to the valuation for the earlier  years,
\nand,  therefore,  only prospective or whether it  is  merely
\nprocedural attracted to all pending cases.\n<\/p>\n
6.We  have heard Shri J. Ramamurti, learned  senior  counsel
\nfor  the  Revenue  and Shri Raja Ram  Agrawal  and  Shri  G.
\nSarangan, learned senior counsel for the assessees.  In some
\nof the cases in this batch, there are some delays in  filing
\nthem.  We condone the delays.  We grant special leave in the
\nspecial leave petitions.\n<\/p>\n
7.We  may here refer to the facts of Civil Appeal Nos.\t3563
\nand 3564 of 1993 which are representative of the batch.\t The
\nCommissioner  of Wealth Tax, Gujarat-IV,  Ahmedabad  assails
\nthe  correctness of the judgment and order dated  21-12-1989
\nof the Gujarat High Court in Wealth Tax Reference No. 15  of
\n1987.\t The  assessment  years\t are  1977-78  and   1978-79
\nrespectively.\tAssessments were made on 8-2-1983  by  which
\ntime  Rule  1-BB had been introduced into  the\tRules.\t The
\nassessee,  a  Hindu  Undivided\tFamily,\t contends  that\t its
\nimmovable  properties be valued applying the said Rule\t1-BB
\neven  though  the  assessments in question  pertain  to\t the
\norders\tprior to 1-4-1979 on which date the said  rule\tcame
\ninto force.  The Wealth Tax Officer rejected this claim\t and
\nproceeded to value the immovable properties independently of
\nthis said Rule 1-BB.  The appeals preferred by the  assessee
\nbefore the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) were allowed
\nand   the  Appellate  Authority\t held  in  favour   of\t the
\napplicability  of  Rule 1-BB.  The appeals  of\tthe  Revenue
\nbefore\tthe  Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,  Ahmedabad\twere
\nunsuccessful.\tThe  Tribunal  upheld  the  Commissioner  of
\nWealth Tax (Appeals).  The Revenue sought a reference  under
\nSection\t 27(1) of the Wealth tax Act in respect of both\t the
\nassessment  years.   The  Tribunal  referred  the  following
\nquestion of law for the opinion of the High Court:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether,\t in law and on facts  the  Appellate
\n\t      Tribunal is right in directing the Wealth\t Tax
\n\t      Officer  to  compute the\tvalue  of  Shahibagh
\n\t      Bungalow\tunder  Rule 1-BB of the\t Wealth\t Tax
\n\t      Rules, 1957 specially when the said rules came
\n\t      into effect from 1-4-1979 only?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High  Court answered the question against\tthe  Revenue
\nfollowing   its\t earlier  decision  in\tCWT  v.\t  Kasturbhai
\nMayabhai1.   The High Court having declined to\tcertify\t the
\ncase as one fit for appeal to the Supreme Court, the Revenue
\nhas come up by special leave to appeal.\n<\/p>\n
8.In Kasturbhai Mayabhai case1, the High Court had taken the
\nfollowing view:\n<\/p>\n
1 (1987) 164 ITR 107: (1986) 51 CTR 309 (Guj)
\n627<\/span>
\n“There\tis, therefore, no doubt that while Section 3 is\t the
\ncharging section, the machinery for the purpose of computing
\nthe net wealth is provided in Section 7 of the Act.
\nPursuant  thereto  Rule 1-BB came to be\t introduced  in\t the
\nrules providing a formula for the determination of the\tfair
\nmarket\tvalue  of  a house used wholly\tor  mainly  for\t the
\npurpose of residence.  It became necessary for the Board  to
\nprovide\t a  formula for determining the market\tvalue  of  a
\nhouse  in order to speed-up the disposal of cases  involving
\nquestions of valuation of such an asset.
\nSince Section 7(1) is a machinery section and since the rule
\nto be made under Section 46(2) must relate to the manner  in
\nwhich  the market value of any asset may be  determined,  it
\ncan  be safely inferred that the rule-making  authority\t can
\nlay down the method or mode of determining the market  value
\nof  each asset.\t When a rule sets out the method or  formula
\nfor determining the market value of any particular asset, it
\ncan only be considered to be procedural and not substantive.
\nRule  1 -BB with which we are concerned also lays  down\t the
\nformula\t for  determining the market value of a\t house\tused
\nwholly\tor mainly for residence.  Since the rule provides  a
\nformula\t or mechanical method of valuation, it is  difficult
\nto  agree  with learned counsel for the Revenue that  it  is
\nsubstantive  in\t character.   It  has  not  the\t effect\t  of
\nimpairing any vested right or creating any new obligation.”
\nAgain  in CWT v. Niranjan Narottam2, the Gujarat High  Court
\nfollowed the Kasturbhai Mayabhai case’.\t The decision of the
\nHigh Court in Kasturbhai Mayabhai case1 is also under appeal
\nin the present batch of appeals.\n<\/p>\n
9.Similar view has been taken by the Karnataka High Court
\nin  CWT v. Vidyavathi Kapur3; Madhya Pradesh High  Court  in
\nCWT  v. Lachmandas Bhatia4; Delhi High Court in CWT  v.\t O.R
\nTandon5; the Calcutta High Court in Manjushree Biswas  (Smt)
\nv. CWT6 and Dilip Kumar Mitra v. CWT7.\n<\/p>\n
10.The\tbasis  of distinction between  statutes\t affecting
\nrights\tand  those  affecting  merely  procedure  is   well-
\nrecognised.  Dixon, C.J. in Maxwell v. Murphy8 drawing\tupon
\nthe  following words of Lord Justice Mellish in Republic  of
\nCosta Rica v. Erlanger9 said:\n<\/p>\n
2    (1988) 173 ITR 693 (Guj)\n3    (1984) 150 ITR 319 (Kant)\n4    (1987) 163 ITR 586 (MP)\n5    (1992) 195 ITR 688 : 103 CTR 129 (Del)\n6    (1988) 171 ITR 348 :(1987) 65 CTR 68 (Cal)\n7    (1993) 200 ITR 336 (Cal)\n8    (1957) 96 CLR 261, 267\n9    (1876) 3 ChD 62, 69 : 45 LJ Ch 743\n628<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
“No  suitor  has  any  vested  interest\t in  the  course  of
\nprocedure,  nor\t any  right  to\t complain,  if\tduring\t the
\nlitigation  the procedure is changed, provided,\t of  course,
\nthat no injustice is done.”\n<\/p>\n
It is true that if one traces any substantive right back far
\nenough\tit  will  be found secreted in\tthe  interstices  of
\nprocedure.\n<\/p>\n
11.In WH.  Cockerline & Co. v. IRC10, Lord Hanworth quoted
\nwith approvala\tfollowing  passage from\t the  judgment\tof
\nSargent, L.J.:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  liability  is imposed  by  the  charging
\n\t      section, namely, Section 38 the words of which
\n\t      are  clear.  The subsequent provisions  as  to
\n\t      assessment and so on are machinery only.\tThey
\n\t      enable the liability to be quantified and when
\n\t      quantified to be enforced against the subject,
\n\t      but  the liability is definitely\tand  finally
\n\t      created  by the charging section and  all\t the
\n\t      materials\t for ascertaining it  are  available
\n\t      immediately.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.In,\tHalsbury’s Laws of England (Fourth Edn., Vol.  23,
\npara  29),  referring  to the  machinery  provisions  it  is
\nstated:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It   is\timportant  to  distinguish   between
\n\t      charging\tprovisions, which impose the  charge
\n\t      to   tax,\t and  machinery\t provisions,   which
\n\t      provide  the machinery for the  quantification
\n\t      of  the charge and the levying and  collection
\n\t      of  the  tax  in\trespect\t of  the  charge  so
\n\t      imposed.\tMachinery provisions do not impose a
\n\t      charge   or  extend  or  restrict\t  a   charge
\n\t      elsewhere clearly imposed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.The distinction between substantive law and\tprocedural
\nprovisions  has\t been indicated in  Black’s  Law  Dictionary
\n(Sixth Edn., p. 1203) as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “As  a  general rule, laws which\tfix  duties,
\n\t      establish\t rights and  responsibilities  among
\n\t      and  for\tpersons, natural or  otherwise,\t are
\n\t      ,substantive  laws’ in character, while  those
\n\t      which  merely  prescribe the manner  in  which
\n\t      such   rights  and  responsibilities  may\t  be
\n\t      exercised\t  and  enforced\t in  a\t court\t are
\n\t      ‘procedural laws’.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.In Salmond’s Jurisprudence (Twelfth Edn., p. 462),  the
\ndistinction betweensubstantive law and law of procedure\t is
\nindicated in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “What,  then,  is\t the  true  nature  of\t the
\n\t      distinction?   The  law of  procedure  may  be
\n\t      defined  as  that\t branch\t of  the  law  which
\n\t      governs the process of litigation.  It is\t the
\n\t      law of actions – jus quod ad actiones pertinet\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      –\t using\tthe term action in a wide  sense  to
\n\t      include\tall  legal  proceedings,  civil\t  or
\n\t      criminal.\t All the residue is substantive law,
\n\t      and relates, not to the process of litigation,
\n\t      but  to  its  purposes  and  subject   matter.
\n\t      Substantive  law\tis concerned with  the\tends
\n\t      which  the  administration of  justice  seeks.
\n\t      Procedural  law  deals  with  the\t means\t and
\n\t      instruments  by  which those ends\t are  to  be
\n\t      attained.\t  The latter regulates\tthe  conduct
\n\t      and  relations  of  courts  and  litigants  in
\n\t      respect of the
\n\t      1016 TC 1, 19: (1930) 47 TLR 13
\n\t      629<\/span>
\n\t      litigation itself; the former determines their
\n\t      conduct  and  relations  in  respect  of\t the
\n\t      matters litigated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ‘…   What  facts  constitute  a\t  wrong\t  is
\n\t      determined by the substantive law; what  facts
\n\t      constitute  proof of a wrong is a question  of
\n\t      procedure.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ‘…  So far as the administration of  justice
\n\t      is concerned with the application of  remedies
\n\t      to  violated  rights,  we\t may  say  that\t the
\n\t      substantive  law\tdefines the remedy  and\t the
\n\t      right, while the law of procedure defines\t the
\n\t      modes and conditions of the application of the
\n\t      one to the other.’ ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.  In Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India11<\/a> it is observed:
\n(SCR p. 25 1)
\n\t      “The division of law into two broad categories
\n\t      of substantive law and procedural law is\twell
\n\t      known.   Broadly stated,\twhereas\t substantive
\n\t      law  defines and provides for  rights,  duties
\n\t      and  liabilities,\t it is the function  of\t the
\n\t      procedural law to deal with the application of
\n\t      substantive  law\tto particular cases  and  it
\n\t      goes  without saying that the Law of  Evidence
\n\t      is a part of the law of procedure.”\n<\/p>\n
16.In  Kesoram\tIndustries and Cotton Mills  Ltd.  v.  CWT
\n(Central)12 Justice Shah observed: (AIR p. 1384, para 56)
\n\t      “Section\t7(2)  merely provides  machinery  in
\n\t      certain special cases for valuation of assets,
\n\t      and  it  is from the  aggregate  valuation  of
\n\t      assets  that the net wealth chargeable to\t tax
\n\t      may  be ascertained…. This is an  artificial
\n\t      rule   adopted   with   a\t  view\t to    avoid
\n\t      investigation  of a mass of evidence which  it
\n\t      would  be difficult to secure or, if  secured,
\n\t      may require prolonged investigation.”
\nThough this was the part of the minority opinion, there\t is,
\nhowever, nothing said to the contra in the majority view.\n<\/p>\n
17.  In\t Murarilal Mahabir Prasad v. B.R. Vad13,<\/a> this  Court
\nlaid down as follows:(SCC p. 749, para 30)
\n\t      “We  are concerned in this case  to  determine
\n\t      not  whether  a  particular  turnover  can  be
\n\t      brought  to  sales  tax  but  whether  if\t the
\n\t      turnover\twas  liable to be charged  to  sales
\n\t      tax, the firm can be assessed to tax after its
\n\t      dissolution.  In other words, we are concerned
\n\t      with   a\t provision  which   prescribes\t the
\n\t      machinery\t for the computation of tax and\t not
\n\t      with  a  charging provision of the  Sales\t Tax
\n\t      Acts.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      18.Procedural  law, generally speaking,  is
\n\t      applicable to pending cases.  No suitor can be
\n\t      said to have a vested right in procedure.\t  It
\n\t      must,  however, be noted that a provision\t can
\n\t      be partly substantive and partly procedural.\n<\/p>\n
\t      19.   In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v.  CT014,
\n\t      this Court laid down: (SCC p. 602, para 27)
\n\t      11 1962 Supp 3 SCR 235 : AIR 1962 SC 1052
\n\t      12 (1966) 59 ITR 767 : AIR 1966 SC 1370
\n\t      13  (1975)  2  SCC 736: 1975  SCC\t (Tax)\t432:
\n\t      (1976) 37 STC 77
\n\t      14  (1981)  4  SCC 578 : 1982 SCC\t (Tax)\t3  :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1981) 48 STC 466
\n\t      630<\/span>
\n\t      “It  is settled law that a distinction has  to
\n\t      be  made\tby  court  while  interpreting\t the
\n\t      provisions   of  a  taxing   statute   between
\n\t      charging provisions which impose the charge to
\n\t      tax and machinery provisions which provide the
\n\t      machinery\t for the quantification of  the\t tax
\n\t      and  the levying and collection of the tax  so
\n\t      imposed.\t  While\t charging   provisions\t are
\n\t      construed strictly, machinery sections are not
\n\t      generally subject to a rigorous  construction.
\n\t      The  courts  are\texpected  to  construe\t the
\n\t      machinery\t sections  in such a manner  that  a
\n\t      charge to tax is not defeated.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      20.Bennion’s    Statutory\t   Interpretation
\n\t      (First  Edn.,  p. 446, para 19  1)  lays\tdown
\n\t      asfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Because\ta change made by the  legislator  in
\n\t      procedural  provisions is expected to  be\t for
\n\t      the  general benefit of litigants and  others,
\n\t      it  is presumed that it applies to pending  as
\n\t      well as future proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” At page 447 it is stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Procedure and practice is the mere  machinery
\n\t      of law enforcement.  As Ormrod, L.J. said:
\n\t      ‘The  object  of all procedural  rules  is  to
\n\t      enable justice to be done between the  parties
\n\t      consistently with the public interest’.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      21.In  Jose  Da Costa v.\tBascora\t Sadasiva
\n\t      Sinai  Narcornim15,<\/a>  this Court laid  down  as
\n\t      follows: (SCC p. 925, para 3 1)
\n\t      “Before\tascertaining  the  effect   of\t the
\n\t      enactments  aforesaid  passed by\tthe  Central
\n\t      Legislature  on pending suits or\tappeals,  it
\n\t      would be appropriate to bear in mind two well-
\n\t      established  principles.\t The first  is\tthat
\n\t      while  provisions of a statute dealing  merely
\n\t      with matters of procedure may properly, unless
\n\t      that  construction be textually  inadmissible,
\n\t      have retrospective effect attributed to  them,
\n\t      provisions which touch a right in existence at
\n\t      the  passing  of\tthe statute are\t not  to  be
\n\t      applied  retrospectively\tin  the\t absence  of
\n\t      express enactment or necessary intendment (see
\n\t      Delhi  Cloth  and General Mills  Co.  Ltd.  v.
\n\t      CIT16.)
\n\t      The  second is that a right of appeal being  a
\n\t      substantive  right the institution of  a\tsuit
\n\t      carries  with  it\t the  implication  that\t all
\n\t      successive  appeals  available under  the\t law
\n\t      then  in\tforce  would  be  preserved  to\t the
\n\t      parties to the suit throughout the rest of the
\n\t      career of the suit.  There are two  exceptions
\n\t      to  the  application of this rule,  viz.,\t (1)
\n\t      when  by\tcompetent enactment  such  right  of
\n\t      appeal  is taken away expressly  or  impliedly
\n\t      with  retrospective  effect and (2)  when\t the
\n\t      court to which appeal lay at the\tcommencement
\n\t      of  the suit stands abolished (see  Garikapaui
\n\t      Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury17 and Colonial
\n\t      Sugar Refining Co. Ltd.<\/a> v. Irving18.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      22.   Halsbury’s Laws of England (Fourth Edn.,
\n\t      Vol. 44, para 925) states:\n<\/p>\n
\t      15    (1976) 2 SCC 917\n\t      16    AIR 1927 PC 242: 54 IA 421 : 32 CWN 237\n\t      17    1957 SCR 488: AIR 1957 SC 540\n<\/pre>\n
\t      18  1905 AC 369: (1904-7) All ER Rep 1620:  74
\n\t      LJPC 77
\n\t      631<\/span>
\n\t      “The  presumption against\t retrospection\tdoes
\n\t      not apply to legislation concerned merely with
\n\t      matters  of procedure or of evidence;  on\t the
\n\t      contrary, provisions of that nature are to  be
\n\t      construed\t as retrospective unless there is  a
\n\t      clear   indication  that\tsuch  was  not\t the
\n\t      intention of Parliament.”\n<\/p>\n
23.We may now turn to the scope and content of Rule 1 -BB.
\nThe  said rule merely provides a choice\t amongst  well-known
\nand well-settled modes of valuation.  Even in the absence of
\nRule  1-BB it would not have been objectionable,  nor  would
\nthere  be  any\tlegal  impediment,  to\tadopt  the  mode  of
\nvaluation  embodied  in\t Rule 1-BB, namely,  the  method  of
\ncapitalisation\tof  income on a number\tof  years’  purchase
\nvalue.\t The  rule  was intended  to  impart  uniformity  in
\nvaluations  and to avoid vagaries and disparities  resulting
\nfrom   application  of\tdifferent  modes  of  valuation\t  in
\ndifferent cases where the nature of the property is similar.\n<\/p>\n
24.Rule\t 1-BB thus partakes of the character of a rule\tof
\nevidence.   It deems the market value to be the one  arrived
\nat  on the application of a particular method  of  valuation
\nwhich  is also one of the recognised and  accepted  methods.
\nEven  if  a  law  raises  a  presumption  and  renders\t the
\npresumption irrebuttable it is yet in the domain of the\t law
\nof  evidence.  In   Izhar Ahmad Khan case11, it was  pointed
\nout by this Court: (SCR pp. 258-59)
\n\t      “It  would be noticed that as in the  case  of
\n\t      rebuttable  presumption, so in the case of  an
\n\t      irrebuttable presumption, the rule purports to
\n\t      assist  the judicial mind in appreciating\t the
\n\t      existence of facts.  In one case the probative
\n\t      value is statutorily strengthened but yet left
\n\t      open  to rebuttal, in   the other case, it  is
\n\t      statutorily strengthened and placed beyond the
\n\t      pale of rebuttal.\t Considered from this  point
\n\t      of  view, it seems rather difficult to  accept
\n\t      the   theory   that   whereas   a\t  rebuttable
\n\t      presumption is within the domain of the law of
\n\t      evidence, irrebuttable presumption is  outside
\n\t      the  domain of that law and forms part of\t the
\n\t      substantive law.”\n<\/p>\n
25.  On\t a consideration of the matter we are  persuaded  to
\nthe view that Rule 1-BB is essentially a rule of evidence as
\nto  the\t choice\t of  one of the\t well  accepted\t methods  of
\nvaluation  in respect of certain kinds of properties with  a
\nview  to  achieving  uniformity in  valuation  and  avoiding
\ndisparate valuations resulting from application of different
\nmethods\t of  valuation respecting properties  of  a  similar
\nnature and character.  The view taken by the High Courts, in
\nour opinion, cannot be said to be erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
26.   The  appeals are accordingly dismissed.\tThere  will,
\nhowever, be no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
632<\/span>
\n633<\/span>
\n634<\/span>
\n635<\/span>
\n636<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (6) 623, JT 1994 (6) 446 Author: M Venkatachalliah Bench: Venkatachalliah, M.N.(Cj) PETITIONER: C.W.T. Vs. RESPONDENT: SHARVAN KUMAR SWARUP & SONS DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1994 BENCH: VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ) BENCH: VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nC.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-21T07:10:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-21T07:10:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994\"},\"wordCount\":3110,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994\",\"name\":\"C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-21T07:10:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-21T07:10:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994","datePublished":"1994-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-21T07:10:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994"},"wordCount":3110,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994","name":"C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-21T07:10:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-t-vs-sharvan-kumar-swarup-sons-on-22-september-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.W.T vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons on 22 September, 1994"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}