9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and the petitioner Banwarilal Sikaria is the " person accountable " or " accountable person " under the Act. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty ("the Controller" for short) by assessment order dated November 28, 1980, under section 58(3) of the Act determined the value of the property left by the deceased Kamala Devi at Rs. 7,85,860.00 and the estate duty payable at Rs. 1,57,518.00. Accordingly, a notice of demand dated November 28, 1980, for a sum of Rs. 1,57,518.00 was issued by the Controller to the petitioner. On receipt of the notice of demand, the petitioner, vide letter dated March 19, 1981, requested the Controller for issue of a challan for Rs. 17,518.00 and to allow the petitioner to pay the balance amount in ten equal quar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Controller, the petitioner was again asked by the Controller to pay the whole of the balance amount, i.e., Rs. 90,000, within seven days of the receipt of the letter. The earlier assessment was reopened and reassessed under order dated September 5, 1984, determining the value of the estate at Rs. 7,95,920 and payment of Rs. 1,60,766 was demanded. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had paid a total sum of Rs. 92,518 against the original demand of Rs. 1,57,518. But a notice of demand dated October 17, 1984, for payment of Rs. 68,258, after the adjustment of Rs. 92,518 paid by the petitioner, was issued in terms of the reassessment order dated September 5, 1984. On July 31, 1985, the petitioner informed the Controller that the entire amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the Controller had the jurisdiction to impose interest on the accountable person on the assessed amount of estate duty after it had been paid, though it was paid part by part at the convenience of the petitioner. Section 70 of the Act is the only section providing for payment of interest while allowing postponement of recovery of duty for a definite period. However, it is not disputed that sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Act is not required to be discussed in the present case. Sub-section (1) of section 70 of the Act runs thus : "Where the Controller is satisfied that the estate duty leviable in respect of any property cannot, without excessive sacrifice, be raised at once, he may allow payment to be postponed for such period, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed to pay the estate duty in instalments without specifying the prescribed interest. The petitioner paid the first instalment and failed to pay the second and third instalments but no proceeding for recovery of the estate duty was initiated though the petitioner was threatened saying that, if the balance amount was not paid within a week, action for recovery would be taken in addition to penalty proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner again requested the Controller to allow him to pay the unpaid amount of estate duty by instalments. The Controller directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 27,518 and thereafter the request of the petitioner to pay the unpaid amount of duty by instalments would be considered. The petitioner paid a sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
