9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of Assistant Controller of Estate Duty under sections 61 and 70 of the E.D. Act, 1953. Imposition of interest without proper authority and opportunity to be heard. Applicability of sections 70(1) and 70(2) in the context of estate duty payment and interest calculation. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition challenging the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty under sections 61 and 70 of the E.D. Act, 1953. The petitioner, as the accountable person, filed the return following the death of an individual. An assessment order was issued, determining the estate value, tax payable, and payment schedule. Subsequent appeals and interim orders led to a final order on February 17, 1975, imposing interest. The petitioner argued that the imposition of interest was unwarranted as the duty had been paid up, citing a Calcutta High Court decision for support. The petitioner contended that there was no mistake apparent on record to justify interest imposition under section 61. The E.D. Act does not mandate automatic interest imposition, with section 70 providing the only provision for interest calculation. The judgment highlighted the absence of a valid order under section 70(1) or 70(2) authorizing interest imposition. Previous legal challenges and consent orders did not include provisions for interest payment, further weakening the basis for interest imposition. The judgment referenced a Calcutta High Court decision emphasizing that interest could only be levied upon a valid order under section 70, and no demand could be made once the duty was fully paid. The court concurred with this interpretation, noting that by the time of the impugned order, the duty had been overpaid, precluding the need for interest calculation. The judgment concluded that the imposition of interest was not justified under section 70(2) of the E.D. Act, leading to the quashing of the order and ruling in favor of the petitioner. In conclusion, the court quashed the order imposing interest, finding no error necessitating rectification under section 61. The judgment emphasized that the imposition of interest was not supported by the terms of section 70(2) of the E.D. Act. The ruling favored the petitioner, invalidating the order and directing parties to bear their own costs.
|
