9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the provisions of section 52 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, are mandatory, leaving no discretion to the Central Government to reject the offer made by an accountable person. 2. Whether the Central Board of Direct Taxes was justified in refusing to accept the petitioner's offer of agricultural lands under section 52 of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Mandatory Nature of Section 52 The petitioner contended that section 52 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is mandatory, obliging the Central Government to accept the offer of property by an accountable person without discretion to reject it. The court analyzed the language and context of section 52(1), which states, "The Central Government may, on an application of the person accountable for estate duty, accept in satisfaction of the whole or any part of such duty any property passing on the death of the deceased at such price as may be agreed upon between the Central Government and that person." The court emphasized the use of the word "may," indicating a permissive rather than mandatory nature. The court cited authoritative texts and judicial precedents, including Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes and Crawford on Statutory Construction, to support the interpretation that "may" is generally permissive unless the context dictates otherwise. The court concluded that section 52(1) is directory, not mandatory, and the Central Government has discretion to accept or reject the offer based on the merits of each case. The court also noted that the Central Government must exercise this discretion reasonably, fairly, and in good faith, adhering to the principles of natural justice. Issue 2: Justification of Refusal by Central Board of Direct Taxes The petitioner argued that the impugned order was not a speaking order and lacked reasons for rejecting the offer. The court examined the procedural aspects and found that the order was indeed passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, representing the Central Government. The court reviewed the reasons provided in the counter-affidavit and the original file, which indicated that the offer was rejected due to the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, which prohibited the alienation of agricultural lands in excess of prescribed limits. The court found that the petitioner's lands were likely to vest in the State Government, making it impractical for the Central Government to accept them. Additionally, the court noted the absence of a governmental mechanism to manage such properties. The court held that the Central Government had conducted a proper and objective appraisal of the facts and circumstances before rejecting the offer, and the reasons provided were valid and justified. The court emphasized that the Central Government's discretion under section 52(1) is not absolute or unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, considering the interests of revenue and practical difficulties in managing the properties offered. Conclusion: The court concluded that section 52(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is directory, not mandatory, and the Central Government has the discretion to accept or reject offers of property made by accountable persons. The Central Board of Direct Taxes was justified in refusing to accept the petitioner's offer of agricultural lands due to statutory prohibitions and practical difficulties in managing the properties. The writ petition was dismissed without costs.
|
