9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of an order refusing relief in payment of court-fees for obtaining probate. 2. Interpretation of Section 50 of the Estate Duty Act. 3. Application of relief under Section 50 in cases of court-fees paid for obtaining probate. 4. Comparison of decisions from Calcutta High Court and Madras High Court. 5. Binding nature of circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 6. Legal validity of the impugned decision and the direction for refund. Analysis: The petitioners sought to quash an order refusing relief in the payment of court-fees for obtaining probate. The deceased had executed a will creating a trust, and the petitioner filed an estate duty return. Subsequently, the petitioner paid court-fees for obtaining probate and sought a refund. The respondent declined relief, stating no mistake was apparent for rectification. The court analyzed Section 50 of the Act, which allows relief where court-fees are paid for obtaining probate. The respondent argued that since the petitioner had not paid the additional court-fees at the time of assessment, no refund was due. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing the statutory relief provided by Section 50. The court referred to decisions from the Calcutta and Madras High Courts. It rejected the Calcutta High Court's view and agreed with the Madras High Court's interpretation. The court highlighted that relief under Section 50 is not limited by the timing of court-fee payments concerning estate duty assessment. It emphasized that the purpose of the statutory provision is to relieve a person from an obligation, supporting the petitioner's claim for a refund based on actual payment of probate duty. Furthermore, the court cited Circular No. 354, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, supporting the Madras High Court's decision. The circular clarified that relief under Section 50 cannot be denied based on the limitation under Section 61 for rectification of estate duty assessment. The court noted that such circulars are binding on officers executing the Act. Considering these factors, the court held that the impugned decision refusing relief and the direction for refund were legally unsustainable. In conclusion, the court quashed the impugned decision and directed the respondent to refund the sum paid by the petitioners towards estate duty. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 50, the comparison of relevant court decisions, and the binding nature of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
|
