Miss Lucy
← All judgments

P.A. Jose etc. vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kottayam etc.

Supreme Court15 July 2015Anil R. Dave · Arun Mishra · Amitava Roy

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An appeal under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 can be admitted only when the High Court has framed a substantial question of law as required by Section 27A(3) and (4) of that Act, and a High Court cannot dispose of such an appeal without having first framed such a question of law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5489-90 OF 2015 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 31781-31782 of 2013]

P.A.JOSE Appellant(s)

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KOTTAYAM Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for

the appellant that the High Court had committed an

error by not framing substantial question of law as

per the provisions of Section 27A(3) of The Wealth

Tax Act, 1957.

The appeal under the said Section can be

admitted only when a substantial question of law is

involved in the appeal and according to sub-Section

(4), the question of law has to be formulated by the

High Court.

Upon perusal of the impugned Judgment, we find Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by that such a question had not been framed and without Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2015.09.26 11:07:11 IST Reason: framing a question of law, the appeal had been

decided by the High Court.

2

For the aforesaid reason and looking at the

facts of the case, the matter is remitted to the High

Court so that a substantial question of law can be

framed, if any, and the appeal can be heard again.

The impugned order is set aside and the appeals

are, accordingly, disposed of as allowed with no

order as to costs.

.......................J. [ANIL R. DAVE ]

.......................J. [ARUN MISHRA]

.......................J. [AMITAVA ROY]

New Delhi;

July 15, 2015.

3

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31781-31782/2013

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/07/2009 in WTA No. 4/2008,11/04/2013 in RP No. 171/2013,11/04/2013 in WTA No. 4/2008 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam)

P.A.JOSE Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KOTTAYAM Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and interim relief and office report)

Date : 15/07/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu V. Patil, Sr. Adv.

For Ms. Meena C. R., Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.

Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv.

For Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The Civil Appeals are disposed of in terms of the

non-reportable Judgment.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr. P.A. Assistant Registrar

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free