9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be granted unless clearance certificate from the Controller of Estate Duty was obtained. As would appear from para. 9 of the petition, a copy of the petition with details of valuation given in this court was filed before the Controller of Estate Duty also for obtaining the necessary clearance certificate. That clearance certificate was granted to the petitioner in July, 1980, which is placed at flag "19". The certificate shows that she was not liable to pay any estate duty, but at the same time the Controller has assessed the valuation of the properties or assets in question at Rs. 1,69,950. On receipt of this certificate the office has placed for consideration if the petitioner would be required to correct the valuation in her petition and pay further fees in the light of the valuation fixed by the Controller. Both parties have been heard on this point. The first objection raised by Mr. C. B. Mitter, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that this court has no right to interfere with the valuation given by the petitioner in the absence of any objection from the Collector. He has invited my attention to r. 4, Chap. XI, Pt. II of the Patna High Court Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in details of inquiry with which this case is not concerned. Under sub-s. (7) of s. 19H of the Act the finding of the court is final, even though an objection raised by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority could still be entertained in such case. Mr. Mitter has contended that s. 19H of the Act prescribes the mode of objection, if any, to the valuation and if no objection to the valuation given by the petitioner is made by the Collector in accordance with the provisions of s. 19H of the Act, the court is helpless in the matter and even if the court feels that the property has been undervalued, the court cannot proceed in the matter and cannot require the petitioner to amend the valuation of the property or to pay any additional duty. I am afraid, it is not possible to agree with the objection of Mr. Mitter. No doubt, s. 19H of the Act does provide for an objection on the point of valuation to be raised by the Collector, but that is not all. The court cannot be stopped from satisfying itself regarding the correctness of the valuation especially in a case like the present one where the petitioner has herself filed a document to show a different valuation of the very same property. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted. That was, however, subsequently revoked as the inventory and accounts were not filed. Hence a second application for letters of administration was made. No court-fee was demanded as full court-fee had been paid on the first occasion. In this context there is an observation that the valuation could not be revised unless the Collector made motion under s. 19H(4) of the Act. Again, on facts, this case is quite different and has, therefore, no application. On the other hand Mr. M. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the caveator (opposite party) has placed reliance on a Bench decision of this court in the case of Mundrika Prasad Singh v. Mst. Kachnar Kuer, AIR 1955 Pat 362. In this case a copy of the list with the valuation was sent to the Collector. The Collector, without complying with the procedure prescribed by s. 19H of the Act, held an ex parte inquiry and submitted his own valuation to the court. The petitioner objected to this valuation. The court thereupon inquired into the matter itself by appointing a pleader-commissioner. The court there was of the Court of Additional District judge. After hearing the parties and examining the report of the pleader-commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even though it has materials before it. The court cannot be a mute spectator to the plaintiff's device or attempt to escape court-fees. The next objection raised by Mr. Mitter, is that the valuation of the property given by the Controller of Estate Duty is for a different purpose and that cannot, therefore, be taken as a valuation for the purposes of obtaining a probate from this court. According to him the valuation to be fixed by the Collector is only for the purposes of estate duty and he may have different criteria (not known to us) for fixing the valuation. It may or may not be the market value of the assets. I would, however, show that the valuation given in this court is correlated with the valuation before the Controller of Estate Duty. For this, I would first refer to sub-cl. (a) of sub. s. (1) of s. 56 of the E.D. Act, 1953, which runs as follows : 56(1)-In all cases in which a grant of representation is applied for (a) the executor of the deceased shall, to the best of his knowledge and belief, specify in an appropriate account annexed to the affidavit of valuation filed in court under section 19-I of the Court-Fees Act, 1870, all the property in respect of whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
