9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,96,196. The first respondent, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Allahabad, assessed the value of the estate at Rs. 20,27,189 and determined the estate duty payable at Rs. 3,37,543.40. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the assessment which is still pending. The petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 79,429.40 towards the duty and a sum of Rs. 2,58,114 still remains payable. The estate of the deceased which was subjected to duty, includes an item of immovable property known as premises No. 1, Phaphamau Read, Allahabad. This premises consists of one main building and several out-buildings and a large area of land. Under the Defence of India Act, the Government of India requisitioned the open land on all the four sides of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffer of the petitioner for payment of estate duty by transfer of immovable property being the premises No. 1, Phaphamau Road, Allahabad, and to negotiate and settle the price of the said property and to give credit of payment of the estate duty by such transfer of property. (2) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, order or direction quashing the notice No. 32-B/ED dated October 21, 1971, issued by the respondent No. 1. (3) to grant to the petitioner such other or further relief or reliefs as the court may deem fit and proper. " Section 52, so far as it is material for our purpose, reads : " 52. Payment of duty by transfer of Property.- (1) The Central Government may, on an application of the person accountable for e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, the context and the background against which the word has been used, the purpose and the advantages sought to be achieved by the use of that word and the like. It would be sufficient to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh : " There is no doubt that the word 'may' generally does not mean 'must' or 'shall '. But it is well settled that the word 'may' is capable of meaning 'must' or 'shall' in the light of the context. It is also clear that where a discretion has been conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation, the word 'may' which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command." Now, in order to determine as to whether the word "may" us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relief to the assessees. It is a matter of common knowledge that when a deceased does not leave enough cash but leaves property, the accountable person finds it difficult to raise funds for the payment of the estate duty. In such circumstances he may not be able to dispose of the property or may not obtain adequate price. Certainly, this causes great hardship to the assessees. In order to alleviate this hardship the present section 52 was introduced. The provision was obviously intended for the benefit of the assessees and he cannot be deprived by the Government of this benefit arbitrarily by refusing to accept the property in payment of the estate duty. It appears that the Government is bound to accept the property in satisfaction of est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided there is agreement on the price of the property between the Government and the assessee. A question then arises as to whether it would be open to the Government to refuse the offer of property on a ground other than the price. In our opinion, it is not necessary to decide this question, because in the impugned order the Central Board of Direct Taxes has disclosed no reason whatsoever. If the Board was not willing to accept the property at the price at which it had been valued by the Estate Duty Officer, it was open to the Government to make a counter offer or if it was not willing to purchase for any other reason, such a reason should have been disclosed in the order itself. The impugned order reads : " I am directed to refer to yo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... state duty. To us that circumstance appears to be wholly irrelevant. If the petitioner had a right to pay the estate duty in the shape of property, the facility of payment in cash by instalments is no substitute for it. In the circumstances we are clearly of the opinion that the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes rejecting the petitioner's offer to transfer property in payment of estate duty is patently erroneous. We, accordingly, allow this petition and quash the order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated September 16, 1971. We further direct the respondents to deal with the petitioner's offer contained in his letter dated 16th February 1971, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
