TMI Blog1969 (12) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate Duty Act - - - - - Dated:- 1-12-1969 - Judge(s) : CHANDRA NARAYAN LAIK., ANIL KUMAR SINHA. JUDGMENT A. K. SINHA J.- In this rule the petitioner prays for cancellation of an order imposing penalty of Rs. 3,000 in the first instance for non-payment of Rs. 35,000 as estate duty by the Assistant Controller on 25th March, 1964, under the Estate Duty Act. Shortly put, the facts are as follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er this notice the petitioner made two payments of Rs. 1,400 each, the said amounts being rents for December, 1961, and January, 1962, respectively, to this landlord in respect of the said premises No. 13, Indian Exchange Place, Calcutta. Since payment was made to the landlords and not to the Assistant Controller, in spite of notice under section 46(5A), by the petitioner, impugned order was ult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it is clear that he had the remedy to prefer an appeal against the above order dated March 25, 1964, passed by the Assistant Controller imposing penalty of Rs. 3,000 and demanding a payment of Rs. 3,000 from him. The petitioner, in spite of the above provisions, not having preferred an appeal, we are reluctant to interfere in this matter under article 227 of the Constitution. Even on merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons" mean a person accountable for the estate duty within the meaning of this Act and not only those persons in respect of whom only a proceeding under this Act has been taken for the assessment of duty in respect of the estate of the deceased. On the admitted position of the parties it is clear that the petitioner's alleged lessors are, no doubt, intermeddlers with the estate of the deceased an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned advocate for the petitioner, that there is an appeal pending in this court where also the questions raised in this rule are awaiting court's decision if not directly, at least collaterally. This is also a point which goes against the petitioner and there cannot be any question of interfering with the order under article 227 of the Constitution. In the result, the petition fails. The rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
