M.KATJU,J. - (1.) THIS is an application under S. 27(1) of the WT Act in which the following question was sought to be referred : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in directing the WTO to consider the applicability of r. 1BB of the WT Rules including sub-cl. (5) of the said r. 1BB to the facts of the assessee's case and then to dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the principles laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biju Patnaik (WT Appeal Nos. 614 to 624 of (Delhi) of 1979, dt. 17th Feb., 1981)" It appears from the statement of the case that the Tribunal has referred various aspects of above question and framed five questions which are mentioned in the statement of the case. A perusal of the same shows that they are really aspects of the same question which was sought to be referred.
(2.) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in CWT vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons (1994) 122 CTR (SC) 380 : (1994) 210 ITR 886 (SC) that r. 1BB which has come into forced from 4th Jan., 1979 was intended to impart uniformity in valuation and to avoid vagaries and disparities resulting from application of different modes of valuation in different cases and hence is applicable to pending cases. In the present case which relates to the asst. yrs. 1975-76 to 1978-79, r. 1BB squarely applies and hence in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court we answer the above question in the affirmative and hold that r. 1BB is mandatory and is applicable to the case in question.;