Maintainability of reference against consequential wealth-tax order rejected after the High Court had already decided the same question.

A reference application under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act was not maintainable against a consequential order passed under section 27(6), because that order merely gave effect to an earlier High Court ruling on the same question of law. Once the High Court had already answered the issue and its decision had attained finality, the Revenue could not seek a fresh reference on the same point. The application was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference application under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 was maintainable against a consequential order passed under section 27(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and whether the Revenue could seek a fresh reference on a question already answered by the High Court.

Analysis: The order under section 27(6) was only consequential and had been passed to give effect to the High Court's earlier answer on the very same question of law. A reference application under section 27(1) could not lie against such a consequential order. The question had already been adjudicated and the High Court's decision had attained finality, leaving no scope for a further reference on the same issue.

Conclusion: The reference application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---