9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the trust known as Mannulal Jagannathadas Trust. 2. Justification for rejecting the application for rectification of the Tribunal's order dated February 28, 1979. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the Trust Known as Mannulal Jagannathadas Trust The Tribunal had initially held that there was no finding by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhusudan Das v. Narayani Bai regarding the validity of the Mannulal Jagannathadas Trust. However, upon review, it was found that the Supreme Court had indeed addressed the validity of the trust in its judgment. The Supreme Court confirmed the trial court's decree that the trust created by Jagannath Das was void, as he could not have created a valid trust of properties held jointly with his adopted son, Madhusudan Das. This judgment was binding and had a direct impact on the estate duty assessment. Issue 2: Justification for Rejecting the Application for Rectification of the Tribunal's Order Dated February 28, 1979 The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification on the grounds that the Supreme Court's judgment did not constitute an error apparent from the record. The Tribunal argued that the Supreme Court's judgment was a finding of fact rather than a declaration of law with retrospective effect. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the judgment of the Supreme Court furnished a valid ground for invoking the power of rectification under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act. The High Court emphasized that the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered the exclusion of the trust property from assessment erroneous, necessitating rectification. The High Court clarified that the expression "mistake apparent from the record" should not be narrowly interpreted to mean only errors reflected in the documents on record. The civil litigation concerning the adoption and the trust deed was part of the assessment proceedings, and the Supreme Court's final verdict disclosed an apparent mistake of law in the estate duty case. The High Court also addressed the argument that rectification under section 61 does not permit passing a fresh or revised order of assessment. It held that rectification of a mistake of law might involve re-examination of the entire material on record and fresh assessment based on the subsequent legal position. The High Court supported this view by citing the Maharashtra High Court's decision in Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. v. V. S. Gaitonde, ITO, which allowed for rectification of glaring and obvious mistakes of law. Conclusion The High Court answered both questions in the negative, in favor of the Department. It held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was no finding in the Supreme Court judgment regarding the validity of the trust and in rejecting the application for rectification of its order. The matter was sent back to the Tribunal for consequent action, with no order as to costs.
|
