The discretion given to the learned Judge under Rule 2 of Chapter V of the Original Side Rules to refer a matter to a larger Bench is to be exercised in such cases where the learned Judge hearing the matter is of the opinion that because of the complexity of the points of law involved or of facts involved it would be more advantageous to the matter in question.

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- It appears that on the 29th March, 1973, the Wealth-tax Officer, M Ward, District V (I), Calcutta, issued a notice under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, with a view to reopen the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69. The petitioners were the assessee Smt. Nirmala Birla, Kalachand Chatterjee and Onkarmal Somani as Trustees of Chandralekha Trust. On or about the 11th April, 1973, the petitioners made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to this Court, inter alia, praying for the writs in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition in respect of the notice mentioned hereinbefore. On the same date this Court issued a Rule Nisi in terms of the prayer of the said Rule. S. C. Ghose, J. who issued the said Rule Nisi also gave liberty to the revenue to conclude the proceedings initiated pursuant to the said notice under Section 17 of the said Act and to pass final order. But the revenue authorities were restrained from communicating or enforcing the said final order, if any, passed in the said proceedings until the disposal of the rule nisi. We enquired at the hearing of this appeal whether if pursuant to the liberty granted steps bad been taken to complete the proceedings, if any, for which liberty had been given as mentioned hereinbefore, we were informed that till to-day no steps had been taken in respect of the proceedings pursuant to the said notice. Thereafter affidavits were filed and the said application under Art. 226 of the Constitution became ready for hearing. It appears that there are 29 other matters wherein other assessees, according to the revenue, have also challenged the jurisdiction of the Wealth-tax Officer concerned to reopen the respective assessment or assessments under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. It appears that the case of the revenue is that in respect of the said assessments which have been reopened there involved the question of valuation of certain shares under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. There was a report along with a letter of the Director of Inspection (Investigation) dated the 14th March, 1973, wherein certain basis of valuation of these shares had been given and on the basis of the said report the said assessments have been reopened. The question, therefore, is whether in view of the said report of the Director of Inspection (Investigation) it can be said that there was omission or failure on the part of the assessee as contemplated under Cl. (a) of Section 17 of the Act or information as mentioned in clause (b) of Section 17 of the said Act. According to the revenue there is also another matter, namely, Birla Jan Kalyan Trust where the assessment in the income-tax proceeding has also been reopened on the said basis. In paragraph 8 of the petition made by the revenue it appears that the said cases were due to appear on the 28th March, 1974, for hearing before Masud, J. The learned Judge, however, in his judgment has stated that the said matters were due to appear on the 28th March, 1974, in the list as marked to be mentioned for fixing a date of hearing. Be that as it may, it is a common case that either the said matters were due to appear for hearing on the 28th March, 1974, or due to appear on the said date for fixing a date of early hearing soon thereafter. It may be mentioned, as it appears from the petition, that prior thereto the revenue had mentioned the said matters before S. C. Ghose, J. for referring those cases to a larger Bench. The learned judge declined to do so at that stage and observed that the said question would be considered after the learned judge had gone into the matter. It appears that the identical prayer was also made before Masud, J. by the present respondents and the learned Judge declined to pass any order in respect thereto. Ultimately, one day prior to 28th March, 1974, the revenue being the respondent to the appeal moved a petition before the Court which came up before Masud, J.