9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (4) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Controller finalised the estate duty assessment on August 30, 1958, he took into account a sum of Rs. 87,049.60 paid as and towards probate duty and after deducting the same from the estate duty levied by him, he arrived at the net estate duty and demanded the same. As already stated, the Central Board of Revenue, on appeal, revised the value of the estate, in consequence of which the estate duty was also reduced. After the Board passed its order, a demand for estate duty was raised after deducting the probate duty already paid. Subsequently, it transpires that the Collector of Madras by his order dated April 6, 1960, and in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the Madras Court-fees Act, revised the quantum of probate duty as, according to him, the Estate was under-valued and a lesser duty was paid and, therefore, an additional demand for probate duty in the sum of Rs. 51,199.14 was raised towards such duty. After full enquiry the additional probate duty was paid by the petitioner on March 3, 1964. Incidentally, it may be stated that the petitioner was allowed to pay the estate duty in annual instalments of Rs. 57,400. After the increase of the probate duty by virtue of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inciples of law the respondent can be compelled to give such relief as without it the statutory relief obtainable by the petitioner would remain in the statute book only as an empty formality and cannot be secured in reality. The facts in W. P. No. 1774 of 1969 are as follows : The petitioner as the accountable person and as the beneficiary under the will of late R. V. Rajagopala Iyer is seeking for a similar relief as above, but in the following circumstances. The testator died on April 9, 1961, and the estate duty assessment was finally made on February 20, 1962. The estate duty as levied and demanded was paid on March 7, 1962. For some reason or other, probate of the will was sought quite late in I 969 and the probate was granted by an order of this court on March 7, 1969. The estate duty paid amounted to Rs. 1,755.68. The probate duty paid consequent upon the grant was Rs. 3,020.20. In this situation the petitioner applied to the Assistant Controller again under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act for refund of the estate duty as provided in section 50 of the Act. This was rejected on the ground that the request was beyond time and the application for refund or relief under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, letters of administration or succession certificate is provided under the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Chapter VI of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act deals with probates, letters of administration and certificates of succession. The charging section under the Court-fees Act is section 56. Section 56 lays down different fees for applications made within one year from the date of death of the deceased and for applications made after the expiry of one year. In the former case the computation at the prescribed rate is made on the market value of the estate on the date of death of the deceased. In the latter case it is computed on the market value of the estate on the date of the application. I have referred to this section only to impress that no time limit is prescribed either under the Indian Succession Act or under the Madras Court-fees Act for filing applications for the grant of probate or letters of administration. Normally applications received by courts for the grant of probate. shall be forwarded to the Collector of the district in which the estate is situate. But such a reference to the Collector shall not bar the issue of the grant. Even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the chapter for which the provision has been made as " payable ". Otherwise an unsatisfactory state of affairs would result. Relief from estate duty can only be obtained by persons when they have paid the court-fee prior to the imposition of the estate duty and for others who pay such court-fee after the estate duty assessment is finalised, no such relief can be given. This would amount to discrimination under article 14 of the Constitution and any interpretation which revolts against any provision of the Constitution of India ought not to be thought of or given effect to. Section 50 speaks of a relief. The Parliament which gave the relief cannot be expected to say that relief which is so generally couched in the text of section 50 of the Act should only be granted under certain peculiar circumstances. If, as urged by the revenue, the relief from estate duty is conditional upon past payment of court-fee for obtaining representation, and not in cases where such probate duty is paid at a later date, then the object with which this provision has been made cannot be advanced. It is the duty of courts to see that the real meaning and purport of a statutory provision is understood in it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Assistant Controller purported to reopen the assessment under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act on the ground that a mistake has occurred in the order and that he wished to rectify the mistake. The learned judges held that, for the purpose of determining the estate duty leviable, the record in the probate proceeding is not relevant. It is only after the estate duty due is determined the question of deduction arises. The question of deduction has nothing to do with the determination of the estate duty due. The operation of section 50 comes in at a stage after the estate duty is determined. These observations in a way support my view that the proceedings under the Estate Duty Act for purposes of assessment and levy are different and independent from proceedings under which a relief could be obtained by an accountable person on the fact that probate duty has been paid over the same estate at some point of time. Mr. Balasubrahmanyan relying upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bhubaneswar Sarkar v. Union of India , urges that in the absence of specification of some means for the grant of relief in cases where probate duty is paid in point of time later than the levy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been brought to the notice of such authority by the person accountable. It is urged that if probate duty has not been paid on the date when the estate duty assessment is completed and, therefore, the probate duty was not deducted as provided from the estate duty leviable under the Act, and if an occasion arises where probate duty is paid at a later point of time, then the accountable person can only seek relief under section 61 and thus incidentally seek relief under section 50. The same position is urged in cases where an additional probate duty is paid by the accountable person long after the. estate duty assessment where. under a portion of the probate duty paid at or about that time has only been given credit to. Section 61 would only apply to cases where the estate duty records disclose a mistake. The mistake may be due to an erroneous. appreciation of facts or law by the assessing authority; it may also be equally attributable to any act or omission on the part of the accountable person. But it is not understandable as to how a claim for relief under section 50 based on the actual fact of payment of probate duty or additional probate duty could be brought in under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable means by interpreting section 50 in favour of the accountable person. I have already referred to the observations of Lord Diplock. In Craies on Statute Law, fifth edition, page, 105, it is observed : "If a statute is passed for the purpose of enabling something to be done, but omits to mention in terms some detail which is of great importance.... to the proper and effectual performance of the work which the statute has in contemplation, the courts are at liberty to infer that the statute by implication empowers that detail to be carried out." Again, Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, eleventh edition, at page 350, states : " Where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution. " It is common ground that section 50 is the section whereunder the Act confers jurisdiction on the authorities to grant relief to persons who suffer probate duty contemporaneously with estate duty. No doubt, there is no indication in the Act as to what are the means by which the relief could be granted. But, on that score, it cannot be assumed that the appropriate authority h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
