Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Maharaj Jai Singh Of Jaipur
1992 Latest Caselaw 665 Del

Citation : 1992 Latest Caselaw 665 Del
Judgement Date : 11 November, 1992

Delhi High Court

Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Maharaj Jai Singh Of Jaipur on 11 November, 1992

Author: B Kirpal

Bench: B Kirpal, P Bahri

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

1. These are petitions filed by the Department under s. 27(3) of the WT Act against the order dt. 29th November 1989.

2. It appears that on an application under s. 27(1) of the WT Act having been filed the Tribunal had framed the draft statement of the case and had agreed to refer questions of law to this Court. The Department was required to file annexures to the draft statement of the case but the same were not filed within the time prescribed. Thereupon by the order dt. 29th November, 1989 the Tribunal, following a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. John Fowler (I) Ltd. passed the impugned order revoking the reference.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that no application under s. 27(3) is maintainable when the Tribunal has not refused to refer the questions of law but has revoked its decision of making the reference. The objection so raised is well founded. Application under s. 27(3) is maintainable inter alia when the Tribunal has refused to state the case and refer questions of law to the High Court. Where, however, in a case like the present the Tribunal has not refused to refer the questions but has observed that there has been default on the part of the applicant/Department in not filling the documents within time and, therefore, the decision to refer questions of law is revoked, the effect, in law, would be that the very application of the Department under s. 27(1) would be regarded as having been dismissed for non-prosecution. The decision not to refer the questions of law is not because the Tribunal came to the conclusion that no question of law arose but the reason for revocation was, as we have already observed, the inaction of the Department in filing the documents within the prescribed period of time.

4. It is not as if the Department, if it is aggrieved by the order dt. 29th November, 1989, has no remedy. The remedy of the Department would be to take recourse to proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution, if it is so advised. The application under s. 27(3), however, is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

5. There will be no order as to costs.