- (1.) UNDER S. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 ('the Act') the Tribunal has stated the following question for the opinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in setting aside the assessment made and directing the WTO to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer under S. 16A(1) which came into effect from 1st Jan., 1973?"
(2.) THE controversy pertains to the reference to the Valuation Officer for valuation of the unquoted shares under r. 1D of the WT Rules, 1957, as it then stood. This Court has held in its decision in 1991 UPST Case 9 that r. 1D is mandatory and is binding upon the authorities under the Act, including the Valuation Officer. Mr. Katju, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue, contends that the Tribunal has evidently followed its earlier decision wherein r. 1D was declared ultra vires as being opposed to provisions of the Act. He further submits that once r. 1D as held, is mandatory the reference to the Valuation Officer is uncalled for.
(3.) SO far the validity of r. 1D is concerned, this Court has already held it to be valid and also held that there is no conflict between r. 1D and S. 24(6) or between r. 1D and S. 7 of the Act.;