Malabar And Pioneer Hosiety … vs The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax on 7 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 738 of 2010()


1. MALABAR AND PIONEER HOSIETY PVT.LTD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :07/12/2010

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                            C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
               ....................................................................
               R.P. No.738/2010 in W.T.A. No.80/2009,
               R.P. No.786/2010 in W.T.A. No.41/2009,
              R.P. No.778/2010 in W.T.A. No.49/2009 &
               R.P. No.809/2010 in W.T.A. No.51/2009
               ....................................................................
               Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010.

                                          ORDER

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Review Petitions are filed contending that appeals were disposed

of by this court without hearing the review petitioner namely, the

assessee. Further, counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on merits

there is another decision of the Division Bench in assessee’s own case

taking a view contrary to the one taken in the judgment relied on by us

while disposing the appeals. Besides this, counsel for the review

petitioner submitted that appeals filed by the Revenue are not

maintainable because under the Instruction issued by the Board of

Direct Taxes, tax effect should be minimum Rs.2 lakhs for filing appeal

to the High Court as on the date of filing the appeal i.e. in April 2004.

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent admitted that tax effect

is less than the minimum required for filing appeals. Consequently

2

appeals are not maintainable and so much so, Review Petitions are

liable to be allowed because maintainability of the appeals was not

considered while disposing of the appeals. Since appeals are not

maintainable, we do not propose to refer the matter to Full Bench, even

though divergent views taken by two Division Bench in the same

matter require reference to Full Bench. Accordingly Review Petitions

are allowed recalling the judgment.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Judge

pms