Summary
The Court set aside High Court decisions in wealth-tax appeals because no substantial question of law had been identified or formulated. Section 27A was in pari materia with Section 100 CPC and required the same jurisdictional discipline. The cases were remanded for fresh consideration and formulation of substantial questions if any arose; the tax and penalty merits were not determined.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could decide Section 27A appeals without formulating substantial questions of law.
- Whether Section 100 CPC principles applied to those appeals.
Provisions considered
- Section 27A, Wealth Tax Act, 1957The reproduced appeal provision required satisfaction about a substantial question of law, its formulation, hearing on the formulated question subject to the statutory exception, and a reasoned determination. (¶ 6–11)
Held
- Section 27A incorporated the substance of Section 100 CPC with minor changes; the provisions were in pari materia. Santosh Hazari’s requirement of a substantial question of law and its formulation therefore applied equally to wealth-tax appeals. (¶ 7–10)
- Without a substantial question of law an appeal merited dismissal at the threshold. If one arose, the High Court had to formulate it before final adjudication, within the statutory framework governing additional questions. (¶¶ 6, 8–10)
- The High Court neither examined whether such questions arose nor formulated them. Its merits decisions were consequently unsustainable, requiring remand for fresh disposal in accordance with these requirements. (¶ 11–13)
Result
Assessee’s appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside and both cases remanded for fresh appellate consideration according to Section 27A.