9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to rectification order under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 regarding interest on deferred payments of provisional demand. Analysis: The case involved a challenge to an order passed under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, by the petitioner, the Bettiah Estate under the court of wards, seeking to quash an order rectifying alleged mistakes in the assessment made on February 17, 1968. The issue revolved around the addition of interest on deferred payments of the provisional demand, amounting to Rs. 46,016, made by the Assistant Controller. The petitioner contended that there was no mistake in the original assessment and that the Controller misdirected himself in considering interest chargeable under section 70 on the provisional demand. The petitioner argued that interest under section 70 can only be imposed where payment is postponed for a definite period, as prescribed by the Act. The High Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly sections 57, 58, 61, and 70, to determine the Controller's authority to impose interest on the provisional assessment. The Court highlighted that section 61 allows rectification of mistakes apparent from the record within five years from the date of the order, emphasizing that the power to rectify must be based on jurisdiction and the mistake must be evident from the record. In this case, the Court found that there was no provision in the Act authorizing the running of interest on the provisional assessment. Therefore, the Controller had no authority to rectify the alleged mistake under section 61. The Court relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court to support its interpretation of the Act, emphasizing the distinction between the English and Indian law on the subject of interest on estate duty. Ultimately, the Court held that the order of regular assessment completed in 1968 without considering interest was valid, and the Controller's decision to add interest on deferred payments was erroneous. The Court quashed the rectification order and the consequent demand based on it, emphasizing that the reasons provided in the impugned order were unsustainable in law. The petitioner was granted costs, and the rectification order and demand were canceled. In conclusion, the judgment delved into the intricacies of the Estate Duty Act, analyzing the Controller's authority to impose interest on deferred payments and rectify alleged mistakes in assessments. The Court's decision centered on the statutory provisions governing estate duty and rectification powers under section 61, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner and canceling the rectification order and demand.
|
