Case Details

Citation(s)
1971 SLG 539 1971 SLD 539 (1971) 80 ITR 281
Madras High Court
WRIT PETITION No. 2517 OF 1967 NOVEMBER 2, 1970
VEERASWAMI, C.J. AND GOKULAKRISHNAN, J.
T. R. Srinivasan for the Petitioner. V. Balasubramanyan for the
Respondent.

D. Subramaniam

v.

Assistant Controller of Estate Duty

Law:

Section:

Section 73 of the Estate Duty Act, 1973 - Recovery of duty and penalties - Estate duty represented duty on Ceylon movables - Ceylon Exchange Control Act placed restrictions on export from Ceylon of any Ceylon currency, or any foreign currency or treasury bills without prior permission of Central Bank of Ceylon - Whether since petitioner, legal representative of assessee, had made no bona fide effort to obtain permissible of said bank to get repatriation of his Ceylon assets to pay estate duty, he was liable to pay duty, out of his Indian assets - Held, yes FACTS The accountable person was the legal representative of the deceased-assessee. The amount of estate duty represented duty on Ceylon movables. The case of the petitioner, the accountable person, was that he could not be compelled to pay duty out of his Indian assets. On writ: HELD There should be bona fide effort on the part of the petitioner to get repatriation of his Ceylon assets to pay the estate duty. One 'S' seemed to have carried on correspondence with the Controller of Ceylon for the purpose. But so far as the petitioner was Concerned, he had made no effort in that direction. The last letter from the controller of Exchange, Ceylon was dated 16-4-1966 by which the Controller informed the petitioner that in terms of current exchange control procedure, Indian assets and income should be first utilised to settle the liability. But this left the impression that once the petitioner proved that out of Indian assets, he would not be able to pay the duty, the Ceylon authorities might possibly be persuaded to release the exchange. Section 7, 8 and 22 of the Ceylon Exchange Control Act did not prevent the Central Bank of Ceylon from granting permission if it was convinced that it was necessary. The petitioner had not made any efforts subsequent to April, 1966. All that section 7 of the Ceylon Exchange Control Act says was that no payment to or credit to a person outside Ceylon should be made without the permission of the bank. To similar effect was section 8. Section 22 places-restrictions on export from Ceylon of any Ceylon currency, or any foreign currency or treasury bills. That again was a bar which…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492