Supreme Court Of India
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. LLOYD Insulation (I) (P) Ltd.
Section WT 27(3)
S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal & B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6155 to 6158 of 2000 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7360 to 7363 of 2000
3rd November, 2000
BY THE COURT
2. The notice on the special leave petitions stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by setting aside the order under challenge and directing the High Court to call for a reference of the question that were proposed by the Revenue. The questions that were proposed by the Revenue read thus : Whether the Tribunal was correct in law (a) in cancelling the penalty under s. 18(1)(a) of the WT Act even though return was filed beyond prescribed period of limitation ? (b) in holding that the lack of knowledge of provisions of law constituted a reasonable cause for filing return beyond the period prescribed ?” The High Court in declining to call for a reference did not assign any reasons, but it seems to us clear that the second question that was proposed is a question of law and the first question is consequential on the reply thereto. We think, therefore, that the order declining to call for a reference must be set aside.
3. The appeals are allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. The Tribunal shall refer the High Court for its opinion the two questions aforestated, after drawing up the statement of case. No order as to costs.
[Citation : 248 ITR 186]