9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 after a lapse of ten years. 2. Determination of assets under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 based on civil litigation. 3. Validity of assessment order by the Assistant Controller. 4. Delay in challenging the assessment order and its impact on relief sought. Analysis: 1. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the Assistant Controller under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, despite a ten-year delay. The court deliberated on whether the delay constituted laches on the part of the petitioner and if the court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. 2. The assets of the petitioner's grandfather were determined for estate duty purposes based on a claim made in civil litigation. The court emphasized that the decree in the civil suit, which formed the basis of the assessment, was modified on appeal, rendering the original order non-existent as the petitioner's grandfather was not the owner of the property at the time of his death. The court highlighted the importance of the factual basis for the assessment and its subsequent impact on the validity of the order. 3. The validity of the assessment order by the Assistant Controller was questioned based on the changed circumstances resulting from the modification of the civil suit decree. The court noted that the dismissal of an appeal against the assessment order as time-barred did not prevent the court from issuing a writ if the primary order was found to be erroneous. The court emphasized that the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction was not time-bound and depended on the circumstances warranting intervention. 4. The court analyzed the delay in challenging the assessment order and its impact on the relief sought by the petitioner. It considered whether the petitioner's actions were reasonable given the progression of events from the dismissal of the civil suit to its modification on appeal. The court concluded that the delay in seeking redress did not amount to negligence or laches, especially considering the significant changes in circumstances and legal outcomes over the years. In the final judgment, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated December 11, 1962, by the Assistant Controller, and directed a fresh determination of the principal value of the estate. The court highlighted that the setting aside of subsequent orders due to the modification of the civil suit decree rendered them unnecessary to be quashed. The petitioner was awarded costs, emphasizing the importance of constitutional redress in cases where grave injustice could result from undue delay or erroneous assessments.
|
