Vinod Chandran, J.

Common question of law arise in the above appeals as to the cash-in-hand; on the valuation date, of the assessees, all proprietary businesses, being capable of assessment under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity the 'Act'), despite the same being disclosed in the books of accounts. An ancillary question in some of the appeals is the applicability of Section 25 of the Act; the power of suo motu revision. The appeals were once dismissed, answering the questions against the assessees, by a common judgment dated 24-07-2009 reported in [2011] 332 ITR 75 (Ker.), Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. K.R.Ushasree. The assessee in W.T.A.No.4/1998, who is concerned with more than one assessment year, had challenged the decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By judgment dated 15-07-2015, the Supreme Court found that the High Court committed an error by not framing a substantial question of law as per the provisions of Section 27A(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act').

2. Having gone through the various appeals, we are of the opinion that the substantial questions of law could be framed as follows:-

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cash-in-hand as found on the last day of the accounting year as revealed from the books of accounts of the various assesses could be treated as an asset under Section 2(ea) of the Act ? One other question arising in certain appeals is also framed as follows:

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in finding that the jurisdiction assumed under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act was not in accordance with law ?

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the assessees in the appeals, which were remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has also brought to our notice a Writ Petition pending, on a challenge made to the provision, numbered as W.P.(C) No.23487/2010. We, hence called for the Writ Petition also to be heard along with the appeals; especially since all these cases are pending for long and the disposal of the appeals without addressing the challenge to the provision under which the assessment was facilitated, would cause prejudice to the assessees.

4. The Writ Petition challenged the specific provision in sub-clause (vi) of Section 2(ea) of the Act. The challenge is on the ground of unconstitutionality for reason of it being arbitrary and discriminatory. There is also an alternative relief prayed to read down the provision so as to include within the definition of 'assets' only cash-in-hand in excess of Rs.50,000/-; which is not duly recorded in the books of account, even of an individual. The Writ Petition is filed by the appellant in six of the appeals, pending before us from the orders of the Tribunal. The orders of the Tribunal has also relied on its own earliest order in W.T.A.No.1/2009. On the status and nature of the assesses suffice it to notice that they are proprietor-ships, engaged in businesses of jewellery, chit funds, bar hotels and production and export of cashew and categorized as 'individual' for the purpose of assessment. Jewellery requires cash-in-hand for purchase of old gold, payments to job-works etc: and chit funds have it, by way of deposit and for disbursal of funds to the subscribers. As far as cashew industries are concerned, their raw material is sourced from small agriculturalists and cash is required to purchase the raw materials as also payment to employees, engaged seasonally on daily wage basis. The bar hotels emphasise the maximum income generated in the evenings and regular cash transactions with customers as also payment of wages to the employees. The employees are also from the unorganized, marginalized section of society. The regular cash transactions in all the businesses necessitate cash to be held as such.

5. In all the appeals, the assessees retained cash-in-hand, on the valuation date, in excess of Rs.50,000/- but mostly disclosed in the books of accounts; i