Sitaram Singhania vs Commissioner Of Wealth Tax
1991 Latest Caselaw 460 Del

JUDGMENT

The Court

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the show cause notice issued under s. 25(2) of the WT Act in respect of the asst. yrs. 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. In respect of the asst. yr. 1985-86, our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent to the order whereby the proceedings in respect of the year 1985-86 under s. 25(2) have been dropped as infructuous. Counsel for the petitioner stated that it has been so dropped on wrong grounds and there is every apprehension that the proceedings would be revived by the Commissioner after rectification. As an when the Commissioner revives the proceedings under s. 25(2), after rectification, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner which we are going to consider in respect of the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88. The petitioner's contention is that the assessment orders have already-merged in appellate orders and the CWT has no jurisdiction to reopen the concluded cases under s. 25(2) of the Act and the issuance of show cause notices is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has challenged the vires of the Explanation to s. 25 of the WT Act, as amended in the year 1988 and subsequently in the year 1989. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has already filed reply to the show cause notices and the Commissioner has verbally expressed an opinion adverse to the petitioner with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner for reopening the cases under s. 25(2). It may be stated that the writ petition is essentially directed against the show cause notice and cause has already been shown by the petitioner but has not so far been adjudged by the Commissioner. It would be proper to direct the CWT to decide the question with regard to jurisdiction which has been raised by the petitioner in reply to show cause notice. If the Commissioner decides the question or jurisdiction against the petitioner, it would be open to the petitioner to seek necessary remedy available to him against the view taken by the Commissioner, and in case the question is decided in favor of the petitioner, the petition will not survive and it would not be necessary for us - to decide the question of validity of the vires of the Explanation under s. 25 of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Commissioner to decide the question of the jurisdiction first and he will not proceed to decide the matter on merits till further order, if the question of jurisdiction is decided against the petitioner. Parties to appear before the Commissioner on 12th August, 1991. The case is adjourned to 23rd September, 1991.