9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Construction of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. 2. Aggregation of interests in joint family property for estate duty purposes. 3. Inclusion of the share of the son's wife in the aggregation process. 4. Appealability of the order under section 61 of the Act. 5. Maintainability of the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution despite the existence of an alternative remedy. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Construction of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953: The primary issue in this case involves the interpretation of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The court examined whether the interests in the joint family property of all the lineal descendants of the deceased should be aggregated with the property passing on the death of the deceased to form one estate for estate duty purposes. The court clarified that section 34(1)(c) requires the aggregation of the interests of the lineal descendants of the deceased in the joint family property with the property passing on the death of the deceased. 2. Aggregation of interests in joint family property for estate duty purposes: The court noted that for the purpose of determining the rate of estate duty, the principal value of the estate must be ascertained first. According to section 39 of the Act, the principal value is the value of the share of the deceased in the joint family property, which would have been allotted to him had there been a partition immediately before his death. The court emphasized that a notional partition of the joint family property is necessary to ascertain the principal value. 3. Inclusion of the share of the son's wife in the aggregation process: The court addressed the contention that the 1/9th share of the son's wife (Satyanarayan's wife) should be excluded from the aggregation process as she is not a lineal descendant of the deceased. The court held that the provision of section 34(1)(c) does not override the principles of Hindu law relating to the partition of property belonging to a Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law. Therefore, the share of the son's wife should be considered, and the shares of the lineal descendants (Satyanarayan and his son) should be taken as 1/9th + 1/9th = 2/9ths for aggregation purposes. 4. Appealability of the order under section 61 of the Act: The court examined whether the order passed under section 61 of the Act was appealable. Both the Appellate Controller and the Appellate Tribunal had held that an order under section 61 was not an appealable order as it does not fall under any of the clauses of section 62(1) of the Act. The court agreed with this view, noting that the petitioner had other remedies available, but not under section 62. 5. Maintainability of the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution despite the existence of an alternative remedy: The court addressed the technical objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution due to the existence of an alternative remedy. The court held that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to granting relief under article 226. Given the circumstances of the case, where the petitioner had already challenged the order before the Appellate Controller and the Appellate Tribunal and failed on the ground that no appeal lay against such an order, the court found it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under article 226. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned order of the respondent No. 1 dated January 7, 1965, to the extent that it included the 1/9th share of the son's wife for aggregation purposes under section 34(1)(c). The court directed the respondent No. 1 to consider only the 2/9th shares of Satyanarayan and his son for aggregation and reassess the estate duty accordingly, and refund any sum due to the petitioner on such reassessment. The rule was made absolute to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs. The judgment's operation was stayed for four weeks to allow the opposite parties to prefer an appeal.
|
