9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was any Estate left by the then Vasava of Sagbara. 2. If so, what is its value? Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether there was any Estate left by the then Vasava of Sagbara The appellant, the Accountable Person, contended that the deceased Vasava did not leave any estate on his death. The Tribunal examined the historical background and legal status of the Sagbara Estate. The Sagbara Estate was a Bhil Estate, governed by an agreement with the Rajpipla State approved by the Government of India in 1890. The Vasava of Sagbara enjoyed semi-independent chieftainship, exercising full authority and rights over the estate until 1948. However, significant political changes occurred in 1947, leading to the integration of princely states into India. The Government of India assumed control over the Sagbara Estate in 1948, treating it as part of Rajpipla State without a separate agreement with the Vasava. The Tribunal noted that the Government of India did not recognize the Vasava as a ruler in 1954, effectively repudiating his rights over the estate. This action was considered an Act of State, extinguishing all pre-existing rights of the Vasava. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Virendra Singh vs. State of U.P., which established that an Act of State extinguishes all pre-existing rights unless recognized by the new sovereign. In 1958, the Government of Bombay recognized the status of the Vasava akin to the chieftains of Nowasi Estates, treating the Sagbara Estate as neither an inam nor a jagir but as a superior holder. This recognition was considered a fresh grant rather than a recognition of pre-existing rights. The Tribunal concluded that the Vasava's rights were repudiated in 1954, and the recognition in 1958 was a new grant, not a continuation of the old rights. Therefore, no estate was left by the deceased Vasava at the time of his death in 1957. 2. If so, what is its value? Given the conclusion that no estate was left by the deceased Vasava, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to delve into the valuation of the estate. However, for completeness, the Tribunal reviewed the compensation awarded for the estate. The compensation was initially fixed at Rs. 30,15,926 by the Special Collector, which was later enhanced to Rs. 58,72,370 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Appellate Controller had reduced the valuation to Rs. 30 lakhs based on the initial compensation award. The Tribunal also addressed the Department's request for enhancement of the assessment, which included various items not considered by the Appellate Controller. The Tribunal, referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT vs. Nardutrai Chamaria and CIT vs. Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd., held that the power to enhance is limited to items considered by the assessing authority. Since the Dy. Controller had not considered the additional items, they could not be included for enhancement. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's application for enhancement, concluding that no property passed on the death of the deceased Vasava in 1957. Consequently, there was no question of levying estate duty on the non-existent estate. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Accountable Person, concluding that no estate was left by the deceased Vasava at the time of his death in 1957, and therefore, no estate duty was leviable.
|
