9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 64(7) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 regarding payment of interest on overpaid estate duty. 2. Application of Section 29 of the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958 in determining the entitlement to interest on overpaid estate duty. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the refusal of interest on overpaid estate duty by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Controller of Estate Duty under Section 64(7) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The petitioner's claim for interest was based on the interpretation of this section, which provides for refund with interest when an assessment is reduced due to a reference to the High Court. The petitioner argued that the provision does not differentiate between assessments made before or after the Amendment Act, and thus, the refusal of interest was contrary to the statutory requirement. The court analyzed the legislative intent behind the provision and emphasized that the Controller must refund the amount with interest upon a reduction in assessment. The court referred to a relevant case law to support the petitioner's contention. 2. The court further delved into the application of Section 29 of the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958, which deals with savings and the impact of the amendment on pending appeals and accrued rights. The court examined the provisions of Section 29 and its implications on appeals and remedies available to individuals before and after the commencement of the Amendment Act. The court clarified that while certain proceedings may be disposed of as if the Amendment Act had not been passed, the right to additional relief provided by the Amendment Act is not precluded. The court highlighted that the right to interest on overpaid estate duty arises upon a favorable decision by the High Court, and thus, Section 29 does not bar the petitioner's entitlement to interest in this case. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders that denied interest on overpaid estate duty. The court directed the accountable person to be paid interest on the overpaid amount as allowed by the Controller, emphasizing that the right to refund with interest arises upon a reduction in assessment, irrespective of when the assessment proceedings were initiated.
|
