9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Application for writ of certiorari to quash an order by the Central Government and direct it to dispose of a petition under the Estate Duty Act. Interpretation of Section 52 of the Estate Duty Act regarding the authority to consider and dispose of applications. Validity of the order issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on behalf of the Central Government. Whether the order is a speaking order and grounds for quashing it.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order by the Central Government and direct it to dispose of a petition under the Estate Duty Act. The petitioner, the widow and administrator of the deceased's property, had requested the Central Government to take over property to discharge the estate duty. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, on behalf of the Central Government, informed the petitioner of the rejection of her offer against the arrears of estate duty demand. One contention raised was regarding the authority empowered to consider and dispose of such applications under Section 52 of the Estate Duty Act. The Central Government argued that it had exercised its discretion in rejecting the offer, even though the communication was made by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The court accepted this argument, stating that the decision was taken by the Central Government, and there was no need to quash the order based on the form of communication. The second contention was that the order was not a speaking order and should be quashed on that basis. However, the court held that Section 52 confers discretion upon the Central Government, and the reasons for not accepting the property were provided in the counter. Therefore, the court found no grounds to quash the order solely on the basis of it not being a speaking order. As no other contentions were raised, the court dismissed the writ petition with costs, emphasizing that the Central Government had indeed taken the decision, rendering the writ petition ineffective in this case. The judgment highlights the importance of understanding the authority responsible for decision-making under relevant statutes and the discretion conferred upon such authorities in making determinations.
|
