9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share of the deceased in the value of the goodwill of the firm was not includible in the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased ? " Ram Kumar Sovasaria died at the ripe age of 82 on August 19, 1971, at Tinsukia. This reference relates to his estate. In this case the accountable person is Murarilal Sovasaria. The deceased, during his lifetime, was the karta of a Hindu undivided family. He was a partner of a firm, Sovasaria Motor Parts and Accessories, Tinsukia, up to April 3, 1971. As a karta he was a partner in another firm, Durga Motor Stores at Gauhati. The Hindu joint family possessed a building referred to as Assam Type Building let out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue was dismissed. Hence, the two questions in this court. Regarding the first question, we see in V. Devaki Ammal v. Asst. Controller of Estate Duty [1973] 91 ITR 24, the Madras High Court had struck down section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act as discriminatory and, therefore, violative of article 14 of the Constitution. That decision was followed by the appellate authority and by the Appellate Tribunal. We may mention that the Tribunal at Gauhati is not bound by the decision of the Madras High Court but the decision has a persuasive value. The Tribunal has not, committed any error if the Madras High Court's decision was followed by them. In the Supreme Court, this aspect was considered in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as already declared ultra vires by a competent High Court in the country and the Tribunals acting anywhere in the country have to respect the law laid down by the High Court. We have already considered this aspect earlier when we referred to the Allahabad decision. In exercising jurisdiction as a court of reference, we cannot declare any provision of the Estate Duty Act ultra vires. Therefore, we choose not to follow the decision of the Madras High Court. For the purpose of this case, we do not order the deletion of Rs. 1,03,666 on the ground that section 34 ( 1 ) (c) of the Act is ultra vires, That amount has to be reckoned as the estate of the deceased. There is another aspect of the question where a dwelling house of the family was v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
