9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of estate duty assessment. 2. Constitutionality of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act. 3. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. 4. Competence of Parliament to aggregate the share of lineal descendants for rate purposes. 5. Applicability of the decision in Gunda Bhaskara Rao v. Controller of Estate Duty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Validity of Estate Duty Assessment: The petitioners challenged the estate duty assessment on the grounds that section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was ultra vires the Constitution of India. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty aggregated the interests of the lineal descendants of the deceased for determining the rate of estate duty, which was contested by the petitioners. 2. Constitutionality of Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act: The petitioners argued that section 34(1)(c) was ultra vires as it allowed aggregation of the estate of lineal descendants with the estate of the deceased, which was not permitted under Entry 87 of List 1 of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India read with Article 366(9). The court held that the power to aggregate the share of lineal descendants was incidental and ancillary to the power to legislate on estate duty and was within the legislative competence of Parliament. 3. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India: The petitioners contended that section 34(1)(c) violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The court held that Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows reasonable classification. The classification made by section 34(1)(c) was based on intelligible differentia and had a rational relation to the object of the Estate Duty Act, which was to prevent concentration of wealth. Therefore, it did not violate Article 14. Regarding Article 19(1)(f), the court held that the estate duty was levied on the property passing on death before it became the share of the lineal descendants, and thus, did not violate the fundamental right to property. 4. Competence of Parliament to Aggregate the Share of Lineal Descendants for Rate Purposes: The petitioners argued that Parliament could not levy any duty on the estate of lineal descendants and that section 34(1)(c) indirectly achieved what could not be done directly. The court rejected this contention, stating that section 34(1)(c) did not levy any duty on the share of the lineal descendants but only aggregated it for determining the rate of estate duty on the property passing on death. 5. Applicability of the Decision in Gunda Bhaskara Rao v. Controller of Estate Duty: The petitioners relied on the decision in Gunda Bhaskara Rao v. Controller of Estate Duty to argue that the share of the coparceners could not be aggregated with the share of the deceased for rate purposes. The court clarified that the observations in that case were confined to the aggregation of the share of coparceners other than lineal descendants and did not apply to the present case. The decision did not aid the petitioners' contention. Conclusion: The court concluded that section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was within the legislative competence of Parliament and did not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The writ petition and the review petition were dismissed, and the petitioners were ordered to pay costs to the department.
|
