IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 738 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WTA.80/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------- MALABAR AND PIONEER HOSIETY PVT.LTD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH R.P. NO.786/2010 & CONN. CASES ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... R.P. No.738/2010 in W.T.A. No.80/2009, R.P. No.786/2010 in W.T.A. No.41/2009, R.P. No.778/2010 in W.T.A. No.49/2009 & R.P. No.809/2010 in W.T.A. No.51/2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Review Petitions are filed contending that appeals were disposed of by this court without hearing the review petitioner namely, the assessee. Further, counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on merits there is another decision of the Division Bench in assessee's own case taking a view contrary to the one taken in the judgment relied on by us while disposing the appeals. Besides this, counsel for the review petitioner submitted that appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable because under the Instruction issued by the Board of Direct Taxes, tax effect should be minimum Rs.2 lakhs for filing appeal to the High Court as on the date of filing the appeal i.e. in April 2004. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent admitted that tax effect is less than the minimum required for filing appeals. Consequently 2 appeals are not maintainable and so much so, Review Petitions are liable to be allowed because maintainability of the appeals was not considered while disposing of the appeals. Since appeals are not maintainable, we do not propose to refer the matter to Full Bench, even though divergent views taken by two Division Bench in the same matter require reference to Full Bench. Accordingly Review Petitions are allowed recalling the judgment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms