9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Provisional assessment under the Estate Duty Act 2. Rectification of assessment order under section 61 of the Act 3. Charging of interest at the rate of 6 per cent. 4. Deduction of Rs. 16,106 from the estate of the deceased 5. Alternative remedy of appeal under section 62 of the Act 6. Issuance of separate challans for estate duty payment 7. Charging of interest for belated filing of the return Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed the estate duty return after the death of the deceased, and the Assistant Controller made a provisional assessment under section 57 of the Estate Duty Act, creating a demand of Rs. 2,12,872. The petitioner objected to the provisional assessment, leading to a regular assessment completed in 1981. 2. The petitioner found mistakes in the final assessment order and made an application under section 61 of the Act for rectification. The Assistant Controller rectified the mistake, but the petitioner was dissatisfied and filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order under section 61. 3. The petitioner contested the charging of interest at 6 per cent., arguing it was excessive. The court held that under section 70, the Assistant Controller was entitled to charge interest at 6 per cent., as the discretion to charge interest was not wrongly exercised. 4. The petitioner claimed that the deduction of Rs. 16,106 as income-tax dues for the deceased's estate was wrongly withdrawn. The court stated that the mistake could be corrected under section 61, and the petitioner's remedy was to file an appeal under section 62. 5. The court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal under the Act, citing the Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India case to highlight that statutory remedies should be exhausted before seeking relief under article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The petitioner requested separate challans for estate duty payment, arguing for a division of liability. The court rejected this request, stating that the liability was joint and several, allowing the Revenue to realize the duty from either or both parties. 7. Regarding the charging of interest for belated filing of the return, the court found that the Assistant Controller had no authority to charge interest in the absence of an extension granted under section 53(3) of the Act. The court issued a mandamus directing the Assistant Controller not to charge interest for late filing of the return. In conclusion, the court partially allowed the writ petition, directing the Assistant Controller not to charge interest for late filing of the return, highlighting the importance of statutory remedies and the limitations on the authority to impose interest under the Estate Duty Act.
|
