9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (11) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rari to quash the order dated January 15, 1971, and to direct the 1st respondent, the Central Government, to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner on January 16, 1970, in accordance with law. What happened in the case was that one Prof. Kishenchand died on January 13, 1961. The petitioner is his widow. She is also the administration of his property. The Assistant Controller by his or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat according to section 52 of the Estate Duty Act, it is the Central Government which ought to consider and dispose of the application and not the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is true that under section 52 it is the Central Government which is empowered by the legislature to dispose of the application filed in that behalf. But from the counter it appears that it is the Central Government w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Central Government not to accept the offer and the accountable person was duly informed of the same." In view of this categorical statement made by the Central Government in the counter that it is the Central Government which took the decision although it is the Central Board of Direct Taxes through which the said decision was communicated and though that letter does not make any reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied that it is the Central Government which took the decision, the writ petition loses all its force. The second contention was that the order is not a speaking order, and, therefore, it should be quashed. We do not think that is a valid ground on the basis of which we can quash the order. It must be remembered that section 52 of the Estate Duty Act confers a discretion upon the Central Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
