Voluntary disclosure bars taxation of the same wealth; late service of statutory notice also defeats reassessment.

A valid voluntary disclosure accepted under the disclosure scheme prevented the same wealth from being taxed again under the Wealth-tax Act for the same years. The notice-based objection also failed because, for the relevant years, the statutory notices had been served after the material date, and the enactment treated service of notice as the operative requirement. The commentary therefore states that wealth already covered by a valid disclosure could not be reassessed, and that assessments depending on late-service notices were unsustainable on the facts described.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the wealth disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance/Act could again be assessed under the Wealth-tax Act; and (ii) whether the assessments for the relevant years were invalid because the notices under Section 17 and Section 14(2) were issued or served after the material date.

Issue (i): whether the wealth disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance/Act could again be assessed under the Wealth-tax Act.

Analysis: The disclosure made by the assessee had been accepted under the voluntary disclosure scheme. Once the same wealth stood disclosed and accepted under that statute, it could not again be brought to tax under the Wealth-tax Act for the same years.

Conclusion: The assessments could not be sustained on the basis of wealth already covered by the valid disclosure, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the assessments for the relevant years were invalid because the notices under Section 17 and Section 14(2) were issued or served after the material date.

Analysis: For the years covered by Section 17, the returns were already on record before the notice was served, and the notice could not validly support the assessments. As to the voluntary disclosure bar, the statute used the word "served", and the notices were served only after the commencement of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976. The declaration therefore remained valid, and the departmental objection based on prior issue of notice was rejected.

Conclusion: The assessments were not sustainable on either the notice-based challenge or the challenge to the voluntary disclosure, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeals failed, and the cancellation of the assessments was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a voluntary disclosure under the applicable disclosure law has been validly accepted, the same wealth cannot again be assessed for the same years; and the statutory bar based on prior notice depends on service of notice where the enactment expressly uses that term.

---