| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1982 SLG 885 1982 SLD 885 (1982) 134 ITR 488 |
Kerala High Court
29966
U.L. BHAT, J.
T.L. Viswanaiha Iyer, P.S. Narayanan and K.S. Menon for the Petitioner. P.K. Ravindranatha Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the
Respondent.
29966
U.L. BHAT, J.
T.L. Viswanaiha Iyer, P.S. Narayanan and K.S. Menon for the Petitioner. P.K. Ravindranatha Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the
Respondent.
T.T P. Beepathumma
v.
Special Deputy Tabsildar (Arrears Collections)
Law:
Section:
Section 73(5) of the estate duty act, 1953-Collection and recovery-Whether under section 73(5) amount of estate duty is to be recovered in accordance with provisions of the 1922 act despite its repeal by the 1961 act-held, yes Facts The Assistant Controller made the assessment of the estate of the deceased, who died in 1969, levying estate duty of Rs. 14,467. As the accountable person did not pay this amount, steps for recovery of the same under section 73(5) were taken and the Deputy Tahsildar (Arrears Collection) issued a notice under section 49(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (KRR Act), stating that if the estate duty together with costs and interest was not paid, a particular piece of land would be sold. On writ, the petitioner, claiming to be in occupation of the land, challenged the validity of the said notice on the ground that estate duty could be recovered as an arrear of income-tax under the provisions of the 1961 Act and not under the provisions of the 1922 Act (as had been done in his case), and that it could be recovered only by the TRO notified under the 1961 Act and not by the Deputy Tahsildar as he had not been so notified. On the other hand, the revenue, inter alia,submitted that notwithstanding the repeal of the 1922 Act by the 1961 Act, under section 73(5) estate duty had to be recovered in accordance with the provisions of the 1922 Act, which contemplated recovery in accordance with the provisions of the KRR Act. Held 1. Normally, references in any other Act to the provisions of an Act which has been repealed sub-sequently should be considered as a reference to the provisions of the re-enacted provisions, unless a different intention appears. This is the effect of section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. A different intention could be gathered depending on the provisions of a particular statute. If it is a case where the provisions of the earlier Act were incorporated by reference in another Act, the repeal of the earlier Act has, generally speaking, no effect upon the construction or effect of the Act in which the provisions have been incorporated. If, however, there is mere reference to the provisions of one statute in…
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