9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective operation of Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. 2. Legality of reopening the assessment under Section 59. Detailed Analysis: 1. Retrospective Operation of Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953: The primary question addressed was whether Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, as amended by the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958, is retrospective in operation. The court noted that Section 59 was introduced by the Amendment Act of 1958 and came into force on July 1, 1960. The original Section 62 provided for rectification of mistakes, not reassessment. The new Section 59 conferred a new power of reassessment, comparable to Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court referred to the principles regarding retrospective operation of statutes, as summarized by Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes and Craies on Statute Law. The presumption is that statutes are not intended to operate retrospectively unless clearly stated or necessarily implied. The court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in *State of Bombay v. Vishnu Ramchandra*, which emphasized that statutes must be interpreted prospectively unless expressly or necessarily implied to be retrospective. The court also examined the decision in *Income-tax Officer v. T. S. Devinatha Nadar*, where retrospective effect was given by necessary implication. However, the court found no such necessity in the present case. The court concluded that Section 59 does not contain any words clearly giving it retrospective effect, nor is there a necessary implication to that effect. Therefore, Section 59 is not retrospective in its operation. 2. Legality of Reopening the Assessment under Section 59: The court analyzed the content of the powers conferred by the old Section 62 and the new Section 59. It found that the powers under Section 59 are entirely different from those under the old Section 62. The old Section 62 allowed for rectification of mistakes and determination of additional duty within a limited period, whereas the new Section 59 allows for reassessment, starting the entire assessment proceedings afresh. The court referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in *Arvind N. Mafatlal v. Deputy Controller of Estate Duty*, which held that Section 59 could not be treated as a continuation of the remedy prescribed by the old Section 62. The court agreed with this observation, noting that Section 59 conferred a completely new power on the Controller, akin to the power under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *V. Jaganmohan Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax*, which emphasized that once reassessment proceedings are validly initiated, the entire assessment proceedings start afresh. The court concluded that the reopening of the assessment under Section 59 was illegal, as it took away the right of the accountable person not to have the assessment reopened. The court held that Section 59 is not a variant of the old Section 62 and cannot be used to reopen assessments completed before July 1, 1960. Conclusion: The court answered the question in each of the three references against the revenue and in favor of the accountable person. It held that Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is not retrospective in operation, and the reopening of the assessment under Section 59 was bad in law. The Controller was directed to pay the costs of the accountable person in each of the three references.
|
