Himalaya Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/666898
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided OnSep-02-1993
Case NumberSLP (C) Nos. 8032-36 of 1987
Judge M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J. and; S.C. Agrawal, J.
Reported in1995Supp(1)SCC226
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Section 27(1)
AppellantHimalaya Trading Company
RespondentCommissioner of Wealth Tax
DispositionSLP Dismissed
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated 3-3-1987 of the High Court of Delhi in WTC Nos. 188, 190 and 192-194 of 1983
Excerpt:
- [m.n. venkatachaliah, c.j. and; s.c. agrawal, j.] -- constitution of india — article. 136 — premature slp — wealth tax act, 1957 — section. 27(1) — maintainability — high court calling for a reference to it on a question of law and holding that such a question did arise out of the impugned order — slp against the high court's order filed prior to disposal of the reference, held, not entertainable -- 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. 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.m.n. venkatachaliah, c.j. and; s.c. agrawal, j.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. tandon1 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.
Judgment:

M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J. and; S.C. Agrawal, J.

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. Tandon1 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.