9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 to forbear from giving effect to the appellate order of the Tribunal dated November 19, 1987, and subsequent orders dated May 17, 1988, and July 27, 1988, as fully described in the writ petition itself. It is stated that in the course of hearing of the assessment under section 58(2) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, furnishing a genealogical table and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovember 19, 1987. The petitioner subsequently filed an application being M.A. No. 48(Cal) of 1988, which came up for hearing on July 8, 1988, before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was of the opinion that there was no point in reopening the matter. The petitioner thus being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated November 19, 1987, and the subsequent orders as aforesaid, filed the present writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is an error of jurisdiction in making the assessment and this writ court is the proper forum to ventilate the grievance of the petitioner. Mr. Pal, appearing for the respondent authorities, has opposed the writ petition submitting, inter alia, that looking to the entire background of the case and the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, there is nothing left to reagitate the matter once again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of one of the Members, if the Bench which was competent to hear the appeal has disposed of the revision application, the petitioner cannot urge that there is prejudice caused to the petitioner and the writ court having discretionary power should interfere with the matter. With regard to the applicability of the charging section as envisaged in section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, it will appear t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
