9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rectification order under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. 2. Valuation of area not under cultivation. 3. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Controller under section 61 of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment involves a challenge against a rectification order dated November 14, 1969, passed by the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The rectification order reduced the relief granted in an earlier order, leading to a dispute regarding the valuation of the estate. The Assistant Controller initially determined the estate value at Rs. 17,05,116, but later rectified it to Rs. 11,03,719. The Appellate Controller further reduced the value, triggering the present writ petition against the rectification order. 2. The main issue in the case revolves around the valuation of the area not under cultivation. The Assistant Controller initially valued this area at Rs. 5,67,000, but in the rectification order, he excluded this valuation. The Appellate Controller, in his order, incorrectly stated that the area not under crops was assessed at Rs. 600 per acre, although the Assistant Controller had specifically excluded this area from consideration. Ultimately, the Appellate Controller accepted the valuation of this area at Rs. 600 per acre in the rectification order, leading to a reduction in the relief granted earlier. 3. The judgment delves into the jurisdiction of the Appellate Controller under section 61 of the Act. The provision allows for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record within a specified period, with the requirement of giving the accountable person a reasonable opportunity to be heard if the rectification enhances the estate duty payable. The accountable person argued that no notice was issued before passing the impugned order, and the estate duty payable was enhanced without a reasonable opportunity for hearing. The court held that there was no mistake apparent from the record to justify the rectification order, thereby quashing the order and directing the estate duty to be in accordance with the appellate order dated July 8, 1969. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions in matters of estate duty assessment and rectification.
|
