Judgment 1. This petition has been filed challenging letter dt. 27th Jan., 2006 (Annex. P-3) issued by the Tax Recovery and TDS Officer, intimating the employer of the petitioners as to how perquisites are to be valued under the provisions of IT Rules, 1962 (for short, "the Rules") for accommodation provided by the employer. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of teachers of the Kurukshetra University and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are in their individual capacity. The case of the petitioners is that they have been provided residential accommodation, for which rent is paid at par with the Haryana Government employees. In the impugned notice, the employer has been informed that perquisites should be valued as per Rule 3 of the Rules. Accordingly, Kurukshetra University calculated the value of the accommodation as perquisites @ 15 per cent of the salary + DPA payable to them. Grievance of the petitioners is that the value of accommodation provided to them is much lesser than the perquisite assessed. They were also not getting house rent allowance which was adjusted towards rent of the accommodation. As per example given in para 7 of the petition, rent of Rs. 250 per month was being charged from Dr. S.C. Mishra, petitioner No. 2 and house rent allowance of Rs. 760 per month, which the said petitioner was entitled to, was also not being paid on account of his occupying the official accommodation. 15 per cent of the basic salary + DPA of the said petitioner comes to Rs. 39,606 which was far in excess of annual value of alleged concessional accommodation. It is further submitted that once uniform rate is being charged from all the employees, it cannot be said that the accommodation provided to the petitioners is concessional. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Steel Executives Association v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., wherein it was held that once uniform rent was being charged from the employees, it could not be held that accommodation provided was concessional. Reliance was also placed on judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Officers Association, Bhilai Steel Plant v. Union of India and Ors. (1983) 139 ITR 937 (MP) and Calcutta High Court in ITO and Ors. v. All India Vijaya Bank Officers Association and Ors. 4. Reliance was also placed on judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Officers Association, Bhilai Steel Plant v. Union of India and Ors. (1983) 139 ITR 937 (MP) and Calcutta High Court in ITO and Ors. v. All India Vijaya Bank Officers Association and Ors. 4. In reply filed, valuation of perquisites has been supported on the basis of Rule 3 of the Rules r/w Section 17(2) of the Act. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of Delhi High Court in Murlidhar Dalmia v. CIT against which SLP was dismissed as reported in (1984) 145 ITR 4 (St). 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in BHEL Employees Association v. Union of India, wherein the same issue was gone into. In this judgment, relying on judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Tata Workers Union and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., it was held that: (i) The rule-making authority conferred under Section 295 of the Act could not be held to be suffering from delegation of essential functions without any guidelines. (ii) Valuation of perquisites under the Rules cannot be held to be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. For applying Article 14, the principle that in the matter of levying of tax greater discretion and latitude is left to the State, had to be kept in mind. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Neither there is any material on record to show that accommodation given to the employee is of lesser value or not concessional or that the employee is forced to live in the official accommodation nor we have the expertise to determine the same. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-assessee was being forced to occupy the official accommodation and value of the official accommodation was less than 15 per cent of the salary. If the perquisites were assessed at 15 per cent of the salary, this will be confiscatory and will not be taxing the income and will be ultra vires the IT Act, 1961. If the perquisites were assessed at 15 per cent of the salary, this will be confiscatory and will not be taxing the income and will be ultra vires the IT Act, 1961. Whether valuation of accommodation is less than 15 per cent of the salary and whether employee is forced to occupy official accommodation or not or as to whether similar amount was being charged from all the employees resulting in no concession, such a dispute can more effectively be raised by an employee during assessment. We cannot accept such an argument in absence of any data. As regards the contention that accommodation provided by the employer may be of different value at different place and fixing value as per uniform slab would be treating unequals as equals. We are of the view that such a plea cannot be gone into in the writ petition rather should be put before the authorities under the Act. 8. Counsel for the petitioner states that since their returns are processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the members of the petitioner-association do not get an opportunity to represent their point of view. In our view, the contention raised is not correct as the petitioners have option to move an application before the competent authority under Section 144A of the Act. 9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the petition with an observation that the petitioners will be at liberty to raise the issues, raised in the present petition, before the authorities in accordance with law. As and when such question is raised before the authority concerned, the same may be adjudicated upon in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.