9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircle, Calcutta. By an order dated February 27, l959, duty on the said estate was assessed at Rs. 76,341.20 and it was further recorded as follows : " The court fees that will be paid for taking out the probate will be allowed under section 62 of the Act after evidence of its payment is produced." Pursuant thereto a demand was raised and a notice dated March 9, 1959, was served on the respondents. It is on record that the respondents on and from March 31, 1959, paid diverse amounts, from time to time, and every month towards the estate duty, which were accepted by the estate duty authorities. On or about June 3, 1959, the respondents as executors applied for the probate of the will of the deceased. The proceedings were contested. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be imposed on them for non-payment of the balance outstanding duty and by an order dated January 13, 1966, a penalty of Rs. 2,000 was imposed on the respondents. On an appeal by the respondents, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Eastern Zone, Calcutta, subsequently set aside the penalty. Probate of the will of the deceased was granted to the respondents and on or about August 16, 1966, the probate duty determined at Rs. 25,893.25 was paid by the respondents. By their letter dated August 30, 1966, the respondents claimed from the Assistant Controller a refund of Rs. 16,052.05 as excess paid towards estate duty. The estate duty authorities took the stand that estate duty as assessed could not be rectified under section 61 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her reference to you." By their letter dated January 25, 1971, the respondents replied to the said letter contending that nothing remained due or outstanding. By his letter dated February 5/14, 1972, the Assistant Controller rejected the contentions of the respondents and reiterated the demand. Proceedings were thereafter initiated against the respondents under the Public Demands Recovery Act, being Certificate Case No. 98 ED/] 972-73, where a notice dated June 13, 1973, was issued by the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas, to the respondents directing them to appear and show cause why their properties should not be put to sale or distress or arrest warrant would not be issued against them for non-payment of the demand. On November 16, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Estate Duty Act and were required to pay only Rs. 50,467,95 on account of estate duty. Adding up the payments which were made by the respondents on and from March 31, 1953, it appears that the payments made up to March 31, 1964, aggregated to Rs. 52,100. All payments made thereafter were, therefore, in excess of the estate duty payable if relief was to be given under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act. The decision in Prem Nath Khandelwal's case [1970] 77 ITR 949 (Cal) was cited before us. It was held in that case by a learned judge of this court that unless an order was made under section 70 of the Estate Duty Act, interest would not start running on the estate duty as assessed. The same view has been taken by the Patna High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
