Case Details

Citation(s)
1977 SLG 1155 1977 SLD 1155 (1977) 108 ITR 717

WT PETITION No. 2041 OF 1971, NOVEMBER 14, 1972
GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, C.J. AND LAKSHMAIAH, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Smt. R.D. Chand

v.

Central Government

Law:

Section:

Section 52 of the Estate duty Act, 1953 - Collection of duty by transfer of property - Whether section 52 confers a discretion upon Central Government to take a property from accountable person in lieu of estate duty arrears or not - Held, yes - Whether where Central Government took decision on application made by accountable person under section 52 but it was Central Board of Direct Taxes through which said decision was communicated, order passed by Central Government could not be regarded as defective merely on this ground - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Central Government refusing to accept property offered by accountable person, could not be quashed - Held, yes FACTS One 'K' died leaving behind his widow (i.e. petitioner) who was also the administratrix of his property. The Assistant Controller assessed the estate duty leviable and the assessment order was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under section 52 requesting the Central Government to take over the property of equal value in order to discharge the estate duty payable by her. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (i.e. Board) after considering her request regretted their inability to accept the property offered by her against the arrears of estate duty demand. The petitioner, thus, filed instant petition wherein she contended that it was the Central Government which ought to consider and dispose of the application and not the Board. HELD In view of the categorical statement made by the Central Government in the counter that it was the Central Government which took the decision although it was the Board through which said decision was communicated, there was no reason to disbelieve what stated in the counter. Since the application was considered and rejected by the Central Government, no case arose for quashing the order. As regards the petitioner's contention that the order was not a speaking order, and, therefore, it should be quashed, it could be said that it was not a valid ground on the basis of which impugned order could be quashed. Section 52 confers a discretion upon the Central Government to take a property in lieu of arrears or not. The…
πŸ”’
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