MUMBAI, July 7: Chief justice MB Shah, who heads a division bench of the Mumbai High Court, on Monday sought to know if ``any other reasonable method of unearthing unaccounted wealth'' existed besides the introduction of an amnesty scheme through a parliamentary legislation. He was hearing a writ challenging the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme filed by a group of tax practioners.

The writ which came for hearing on Monday was moved by the All-India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) and tax practitioner Vijay H Patil on the ground that the scheme was a `fraud'.

Government pleader Rafiq Dada said that had the writ been filed before the commencement of the scheme, the government would have been in a better position to present the necessary data which, in turn, could have countered petitioners' claims that earlier schemes had failed miserably. Dada sought time to file government response to the petition.

Earlier, during the hearing, Shah, in a lighter vein, said that had the federation members not helped tax-evaders, this situation wouldn't have come up. Sohrab Erach Dastur, counsel for the petitioner, objected to the court's repeated reference to this effect.

The court asked petitioners to suggest an alternative solution to solve the problem of unearthing undisclosed wealth. The chief justice said: ``Whether the petitioner finds the scheme successful or not, the government may have assessed it as successful to some extent.'' The court also pointed out that it was the only reasonable way of tapping unaccounted money. Shah said,``Other steps taken up by the government, like conducting raids and searches, have not proved successful.''

The petitioners alleged that introduction of such schemes was becoming a regular feature like the ``planning commission's five-year plans''. They said whenever similar schemes were introduced in the past, it was claimed that it was the last chance for tax-evaders to disclose their unaccounted income. However, on each occassion, it was the ``last, the laster, the lastest,'' said Dastur. The petitioners asked the court,``For how long would these tax-evaders enjoy the food of dishonesty?'' They questioned the scheme's validity: ``Can we have the same legislation repeated eight times over a period of 30 years?''

The chief justice said, ``The scheme should be judged by an appropriate legislation passed by the legislature and not by the court. This is a parliamentary method of unearthing unaccounted black money. This act is just a policy decision taken by the government.'' On which the petitioners asked whether it was the only way to disclose unaccounted income.

They attempted to draw a parallel between the Indian economy vis-a-vis the American economy. To which the chief justice said that in India the entire machineries, including the approach of the court, were different.

The court asked, ``Can we say that the introduction of the scheme is against the Constitution?'' It was the legislature which had to legislate and there was no violation of Constitution except for the reference made to the article 14 by the petitioner which dealt with the `reasonableness', the court added.

It pointed out that article 269 of the Income-Tax Act, pertaining to transfer of property, was not successful in tapping unaccounted money. The chief justice said,``We can't blame investigative agencies for not tapping unaccounted money due to other existing loopholes within the economy.'' The court has asked the government pleader to file an affidavit, adjourned the matter till July 17 and told the petitioner that the court was not inclined to stop the scheme which has already commenced.y

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.