Issue
Decision
Himalaya Trading Company
v.
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax
(Supreme Court Of India)
SLP (C) Nos. 8032-36 of 1987 | 02-09-1993
1. These special leave petitions have been listed before us along with the batch of cases in which the interpretation of Rule 1-BB of the Wealth Tax Rules is involved
2. We are afraid, having regard to the stage of the proceedings in the High Court at which these matters have been brought up here, it is inappropriate to club these matters with other cases in the batch
3. What appears to have happened is that the High Court in an application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act called for statement of the case and required a question of law to be referred to it for its opinion. The High Court held that such a question of law did arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal
4. In the circumstances, it is inappropriate to entertain these petitions for special leave. The Revenue will state a case and refer the question of law as reframed by the High Court in accordance with the directions of the High Court. Incidentally, the High Court, in another matter in CWT v. O. P. Tandon had answered a similar question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee
5. If the statement of the case has already been submitted to the High Court, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible
6. With these observations, these special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
2. We are afraid, having regard to the stage of the proceedings in the High Court at which these matters have been brought up here, it is inappropriate to club these matters with other cases in the batch
3. What appears to have happened is that the High Court in an application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act called for statement of the case and required a question of law to be referred to it for its opinion. The High Court held that such a question of law did arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal
4. In the circumstances, it is inappropriate to entertain these petitions for special leave. The Revenue will state a case and refer the question of law as reframed by the High Court in accordance with the directions of the High Court. Incidentally, the High Court, in another matter in CWT v. O. P. Tandon had answered a similar question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee
5. If the statement of the case has already been submitted to the High Court, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible
6. With these observations, these special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Advocates List
For
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE M. N. VENKATACHALIAH (CJI)
HON'BLE JUSTICE S. C. AGRAWAL
Eq Citation
(1995) SUPPL. 1 SCC 226
LQ/SC/1993/686
HeadNote
Wealth Tax Act, 1957 — S. 27(1) — Application under — SLPs filed against order of High Court in application under S. 27(1) — SLPs dismissed — Revenue directed to state a case and refer question of law as reframed by High Court in accordance with its directions — Wealth Tax Rules, 1964, R. 1-BB
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
