1991 (9) TMI 49 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Accountant Member in giving a direction contrary to unanimous decision.
2. Maintainability of the petition under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
3. Applicability of section 35(1)(e) for rectification of the order.
4. High Court's power under article 227 to set aside void orders.

Analysis:

The case involved petitions under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, where the Appellate Tribunal rejected the applications seeking reference of specific questions. The Tribunal's order revealed a unanimous decision by both the judicial and Accountant Members regarding the properties in question. However, the Accountant Member issued a separate note departing from the unanimous decision, causing potential issues in the final disposal of the case by the assessing authority. The primary issue was the Accountant Member's jurisdiction to give a direction conflicting with the unanimous verdict of the Bench.

The key argument revolved around whether the questions formulated in the petition arose from the Tribunal's order and if the petitioner could use section 35(1)(e) for rectification. The court clarified that the dissenting note of the Accountant Member did not form part of the main order due to its contradiction with the unanimous decision. The dissenting note was deemed to be made without jurisdiction, making it ineligible for rectification under section 35.

Regarding the High Court's power under article 227, the court acknowledged its duty to ensure the Tribunals act within their authority and legally. It was established that the High Court could set aside void orders, such as the dissenting note, through its visitatorial jurisdiction recognized under article 227 of the Constitution. Despite the Revenue not filing a separate proceeding to quash the dissenting note, the court exercised its authority to set it aside, thereby resolving the issue of the Accountant Member's conflicting direction.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the original petitions by setting aside the dissenting note of the Accountant Member, thereby addressing the jurisdictional conflict and ensuring the case's proper disposal.