9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to interfere with the valuation of the property given by the petitioner. 2. Applicability of the valuation given by the Controller of Estate Duty for the purposes of probate duty. 3. Requirement for the petitioner to amend the valuation and pay additional court fees. Detailed Analysis: Jurisdiction of the Court to Interfere with the Valuation: The petitioner argued that the court has no right to interfere with the valuation provided by the petitioner in the absence of any objection from the Collector. The petitioner relied on Rule 4, Chapter XI, Part II of the Patna High Court Rules, which mandates that every application for probate must be accompanied by a certificate of the Registrar as to the duty having been paid, or a certificate of the taxing officer that no duty is payable. The petitioner also referenced Section 19-I of the Court-Fees Act, 1870, which requires the petitioner to file a valuation of the property and pay the fee mentioned in the First Schedule. The petitioner contended that the court cannot proceed to inquire into the valuation if no objection is raised by the Collector under Section 19H of the Act. However, the court disagreed, stating that it cannot be stopped from satisfying itself regarding the correctness of the valuation, especially when the petitioner has filed a document showing a different valuation of the same property. The court emphasized that it has the authority to ensure that the valuation is accurate and not merely rely on the absence of objections from the Collector. Applicability of the Valuation Given by the Controller of Estate Duty: The petitioner contended that the valuation determined by the Controller of Estate Duty is for a different purpose and should not be used for probate valuation. The court examined Section 56(1)(a) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, which requires the executor to specify all property in respect of which estate duty is payable and deliver a copy of the affidavit with the account to the Controller. The court noted that the valuation given in the probate application is correlated with the valuation before the Controller of Estate Duty. The Controller conducts an inquiry and determines the valuation if not satisfied with the account provided. The court highlighted that the petitioner did not appeal against the valuation fixed by the Controller, thereby accepting it. The court concluded that the petitioner cannot have different valuations for probate duty and estate duty. Requirement for the Petitioner to Amend the Valuation and Pay Additional Court Fees: The court referred to Rule 21, Chapter XI, Part II of the Patna High Court Rules, which treats the probate application as a suit where the petitioner becomes the plaintiff and the caveator the defendant. The court emphasized that under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint can be rejected if the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation when required by the court. This provision allows the court to hold an inquiry into the valuation and make necessary orders. The court cannot be a mute spectator to any attempt by the petitioner to escape court fees. The court concluded that it has ample powers to refix the valuation and require the petitioner to amend the valuation and pay additional duty. Conclusion: The court held that it has the authority to ensure the correctness of the valuation provided by the petitioner, even in the absence of objections from the Collector. The valuation determined by the Controller of Estate Duty is applicable for probate purposes, and the petitioner cannot have different valuations for probate and estate duties. The petitioner is required to amend the valuation in the petition in accordance with the valuation mentioned in the estate duty clearance certificate and pay the additional court fees. The case was listed for further orders and payment of the deficit court-fee.
|
