9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Dispute over estate duty valuation and appointment of valuers - Tribunal's decision on acceptance of valuation reports and referral to third valuer - Applicability of provisions under section 63(5) and 63(6) of the E.D. Act, 1953 - Competency of the reference made by the Tribunal - Validity of the Tribunal's decision on the valuation reports Analysis: The judgment concerns a dispute arising from the valuation of an estate for estate duty purposes following the death of Abdul Khader. The Tribunal appointed two valuers, one nominated by the appellant and the other by the respondent, to determine the property's value. Initially, the valuers submitted separate reports with varying valuations. Subsequently, they jointly inspected the properties and agreed on a valuation of Rs. 14,11,000. The revenue objected to the acceptance of this joint report, arguing that the valuation should have been referred to a third valuer due to the initial difference in opinions. However, the Tribunal overruled this objection, leading to further appeals and references to the High Court. The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 63(5) and 63(6) of the E.D. Act, 1953, which govern the Tribunal's powers in passing orders on valuation disputes. Section 63(6) mandates that the Tribunal must conform to the decision of the valuers when a valuation dispute is referred to them. The Court emphasized that the decision of the valuers, or a third valuer in case of disagreement, is final, leaving no room for further objections or referrals to additional valuers. Therefore, the Tribunal's adherence to the valuers' joint decision was deemed appropriate and legally sound. Regarding the competency of the reference made by the Tribunal in one of the cases, the Court found it to be invalid as it was based on a procedural order rather than a final decision under section 63(5). Consequently, the Court declined to answer the question raised in that reference. In subsequent issues raised by the revenue concerning the acceptance of valuation reports and the Tribunal's refusal to question their validity, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions. It reiterated that the Tribunal is bound by the valuers' decision on valuation, as specified in the E.D. Act, and should not delve into the correctness of the valuers' report. In conclusion, the High Court answered the questions raised in the references against the revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decisions on valuation matters. The Court directed the revenue to bear the costs and set the counsel's fee at Rs. 350. The judgment clarifies the strict adherence required by the Tribunal to the valuers' decisions in estate duty valuation disputes, emphasizing the finality of such valuations under the E.D. Act, 1953.
|
