T.S.Sivagnanam, J. - (1.) Heard Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an order passed by the respondent dated 06.04.2004. The proceedings arise under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 and by the impugned order, the respondent has fixed the date of death of the petitioner's husband as "25.03.1982", pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in an earlier writ petition being W.P.No.4616 of 1988.
(3.) The following facts would be necessary for disposal of the writ petition. (i) The petitioner's husband P.V.Gajapathi Raju was an assessee under the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act. On 2nd August 1975, the petitioner's husband went to Thiruvanmiyur Beach for a swim and did not return and was missing ever since. The petitioner's earnest efforts to trace him were futile. The Police were also unable to help and secure any information about the petitioner's husband's whereabouts. Till date, the petitioner has no information about her husband and she states on affidavit that she hopes that he might return if he is alive. (ii) The dispute in the present proceedings commenced with the issuance of a notice by the respondent dated 25.03.1982 under Section 55 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] stating that he has come to understand that P.V.Gajapathi Raju died on or about 2nd August 1975 and it appears to him that estate duty is leviable under the Act on the property which has passed on to the petitioner on the demise of the assessee. The petitioner was required to inform the respondent as to whether she has moved the High Court in the matter and whether Gajapathi Raju had been pronounced as dead by a Court of law and to also inform that in such an event, the petitioner will be liable for rendering accounts as "Person Accountable" under Section 53 of the Act. (iii) In reply to the notice, the petitioner informed the respondent that Gajapathi Raju had not been pronounced dead by the Court and also stated that she is not aware of the procedure in that regard. (iv) On advise being given to the petitioner, she appears to have filed return of estate duty in respect of the estate of her husband and sought for clearance. According to the petitioner, this return was filed by way of abundant caution as that was the advise given to her. Based on the return filed by the petitioner, a provisional assessment was drawn by the respondent. It is only thereafter the petitioner obtained legal advise and she was informed that the filing of estate duty return was not in accordance with law and that a person could be declared as dead only by an order passed by an appropriate Court and the return filed by the petitioner should be treated as non est in law. (v) Subsequently, the respondent, by letter dated 14.09.1983, called upon the petitioner to furnish various information and also furnish a copy of the order pronouncing Gajapathi Raju as dead. The petitioner sent a reply stating that the estate duty return was filed on the basis that Gajapathi Raju is missing from 2nd August 1975 and that under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, he was presumed to be dead, since he had not been heard of ever since. Subsequent to the said letter, no action appears to have been initiated. However, the petitioner received a notice dated 19.12.1984 under Section 58(2) of the Act calling upon her to appear before the respondent on 10.01.1985 in connection with the estate duty proceedings. The petitioner informed that the circumstances referred above and stated that there is no valid proceedings under the Estate Duty Act and not satisfied with the same, another notice dated 07.07.1985 was issued requiring the attendance of the petitioner. This correspondence between the petitioner and the Department was going on and at that stage, the petitioner moved the Original Side of this Court in Application No.378 of 1987 under Section 108 of the Evidence Act seeking for a declaration that P.V.Gajapathi Raju had not been heard of or seen subsequent to 2nd August 1975, he had to be pronounced as dead. An order was passed by this Court on the said application dated 30.01.1987 though not as prayed for by the petitioner. Once again the respondent called upon the petitioner to appear before him and at that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4616 of 1988 challenging a letter dated 03.02.1988 proposing to make an assessment on the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of issuing a direction to the respondent to fix the date of death. The writ appeal filed against the judgment was pending and ultimately, the writ appeal was disposed of, by judgment dated 13.11.2003 giving the respondent four months' time to determine the date of death by giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all points of law. Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned order has been passed determining the date of death of P.V.Gajapathi Raju as 25.03.1982.;