P.A. Jose etc. vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kottayam etc.
- Neutral2015 INSC 495
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
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