9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty; Guntur-4, dated January 23, 1970, informing the petitioner that in the absence of any provision for payment of interest in the Estate Duty Act prior to its amendment in 1958, which came into force with effect from July 1, 1960, he is not entitled to the payment of interest claimed by him. The petitioner's father, M. V. Narasimhacharlu, died on May 3, 1955, at Guntur leaving behind him his four undivided sons. His eldest son, M. S. Narayanacharlu, the petitioner herein, is the accountable person and he filed a return showing that the properties which the deceased possessed belonged to the Hindu undivided family and that he had only 1/5th share therein and as such the estate duty is leviable onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irs and that alone became liable to be assessed under the Act. The Central Board directed the Assistant Controller, by its order dated April 10, 1969, to implement the decision of this court. The Assistant Controller while determining the amount refundable to the petitioner at Rs. 13,204.90, directed payment of that amount. This was done by the Assistant Controller without notice to the petitioner, with the result that the petitioner could not make his representation as to the payment of interest which, according to him, he was entitled to by virtue of sub-section (7) of section 64 of the Act. He then made an application inviting the attention of the Assistant Controller to rectify his order and direct payment of interest as the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich provides for payment of interest on the sum overpaid by him. To appreciate the relative contentions, it is necessary to quote sub-section (7) of section 64 of the Act. It reads: "Where the amount of any assessment is reduced as a result of any reference to the High Court, the amount, if any, overpaid as estate duty shall be refunded with such interest as the Controller may allow unless the High Court, on intimation being given by the Controller within thirty days of the receipt of the result of such reference that he intends to ask for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, makes an order authorising the Controller to postpone payment of such refund until the disposal of the appeal in the Supreme Court." This is not a case where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced by Parliament, and if pending the litigation or pending the appeal or reference, the legislature has enacted it the deciding Tribunal must give effect to it (see Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income-tax). We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Assistant Controller was in error in declining to award interest on the ground that there is no provision for payment of interest in the Estate Duty Act prior to its amendment in 1958. The respondent is directed to pay such interest on the amount overpaid by the petitioner as he may consider reasonable. A writ of mandamus shall accordingly issue to the respondent. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Advocate's fee, Rs. 150. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
