TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisional duty of Rs. 25,000 paid by the petitioner. The petitioner paid a further sum of Rs. 10,272 and sought the facility of paying the balance amount in instalments under section 70(2) of the Act, which was allowed by the proceedings, exhibit P-1, and the petitioner was permitted to pay the amount in eight half-yearly instalments from February 6, 1984, inclusive of interest. The petitioner simultaneously challenged the assessment in appeal which was partly allowed by the Appellate Controller on November 23, 1984, reducing the principal value by Rs. 1,85,000. The order was implemented by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty by his proceedings, exhibit P-2, dated January 5, 1985, fixing the duty payable at Rs. 53,845. Deducting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in part by the Appellate Tribunal's order on September 29, 1989. The tall claim put forward in the writ petition (which no doubt was not pressed) that no interest at all is chargeable, cannot stand because the petitioner had opted for payment in instalments and under that provision, the instalments facility is liable to be granted only subject to payment of interest. The only question for consideration therefore is what is the effect of the first appellate order on the running of interest. I have already noted that the balance demand got reduced to a mere Rs. 445 by virtue of this order which the petitioner promptly paid. It is also seen from the pleadings that the petitioner had paid the instalments (inclusive of interest) properly in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bit P-1. The assessee paid the small further amount due as soon as it was demanded after the Appellate Controller's order. I am, therefore, of the view that no interest could run during the period the order of the Appellate Controller was in force. The demand for interest made on the petitioner by the revised order, exhibit P-3, requires modification to this limited extent. The original petition is, therefore, allowed in part. I direct the first respondent to modify the order, exhibit P-3, in so far as it claims interest from the petitioner, by deleting that part of the interest which relates to the period when the Appellate Controller's order was in force, upto September 29, 1989, and confining it only to the rest of the period. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
