9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1982 (3) TMI 63 - SC - Indian LawsWhether on the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri any estate duty could be levied on the properties comprised in the estate known as Madra Math properties? Held that - In the instant case the interest of the Mahant who is elected to be the incharge of the property and who is in enjoyment of the property in common with the disciples of the Math comes to an end on his death and his interest of enjoyment in common with other disciples whatever may be the nature of such interest does not pass at any point of time to any other person After the death of the Mahant duly elected the right to be the in-charge of the property vests in the person who is thereafter elected as Mahant and the right of the deceased Mahant to enjoy the property in common with the other disciples of the Math completely ceases and does not pass to anybody else. In the instant case therefore no interest of the Mahant passes to anybody else and the provisions of the Act are therefore not attracted. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the properties comprised in the estate known as Madra Math properties have rightly been assessed to estate duty under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. 2. The validity of the imposition of penalty in the writ petition. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessment of Estate Duty on Madra Math Properties: The primary issue in these appeals was whether estate duty could be levied on the properties of Madra Math following the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Patna, had assessed estate duty on the properties, considering them to be the personal estate of the deceased Mahant. This decision was challenged by the accountable person, who argued that the properties were trust properties belonging to the Math and not the personal estate of the Mahant. The High Court, referencing Title Suit No. 1 of 1932 adjudicated by the District Judge of Gaya, concluded that the properties were trust properties and not the personal estate of the Mahant. The High Court held that the properties were granted by Emperor Shah Alam II by a Firman to Mahant Ayodhya Puri and were intended for the Math, thus making them trust properties. The properties could not be disposed of, sold, or transferred, and did not pass to the heirs of the Mahant but to the next Mahant elected according to the custom of the Asthal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the conclusion of the Board of Revenue that the properties were the personal properties of the Mahant was not a pure finding of fact but a mixed question of law and fact. The High Court was correct in determining that the properties belonged to the Math and were trust properties, based on the Firman and the judgment of the District Judge. 2. Validity of Imposition of Penalty: The writ petition challenged the imposition of a penalty related to the estate duty assessment. The High Court had allowed the writ petition and quashed the order imposing the penalty, contingent on the outcome of the tax reference. Since the High Court ruled that the properties were trust properties and not subject to estate duty, the imposition of the penalty was also invalidated. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, stating that no estate duty could be levied on the trust properties of the Math, and consequently, the penalty imposed was also invalid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the properties of Madra Math were trust properties and not subject to estate duty. Consequently, the imposition of the penalty was also quashed. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs, as no respondent appeared in the appeals.
|
