MANMOHAN DASS Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, CHANDIGARH
LAWS(HPH)-1991-3-11
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 27,1991

MANMOHAN DASS Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, CHANDIGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DEVINDER GUPTA,J. - (1.) In the present writ petition, petitioners have sought the quashing of order, Annexure ˜G passed by the respondent on August 29, 1980, refusing to allow relief to the petitioner in the payment of the entire Court -fees paid for obtaining probate.
(2.) Smt Lila Wati Kapur, mother of petitioner No. 1, expired on May 23, 1958. She had executed a Will on April 10, 1958 creating a Trust known as Lila Wati Kapur Trust, Shimla. The Trust is petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 has been named in the Will as sole executor and to manage the property of the deceased as well as the income of the Trust. Petitioner No. 1 filed estate duty return under the provisions of Estate Duty Act, 1953 (Act No. 34 of 1953) (hereinafter to be called as the Act) and respondent on March 28, 1959, framed an estimate on the total estate amounting to Rs. 3,26,642 after giving a credit for a sum of Rs. 3,750 for Succession Certificate fees and Rs. 20,382.24 on account of provisional demand under section 57 (2) a demand for Rs. 1,114.05 was created.
(3.) Petitioner No. 1, in the meanwhile, had filed a petition under sections 222, 276 read with section 300 of the Indian Succession Act in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh for grant of probate to the estate of the deceased. The said probate petition (Probate No. 7 of 1977) was decided on March 1, 1978 in which the estate of the deceased was determined as Rs 3,27,642. In pursuance to the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, petitioner No 1 paid a sum of Rs. 13,106 towards Court -fees for obtaining the probate. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter on October 25, 1978 approached respondent with an application under section 50 of the Act claiming a refund of Rs. 13,106 being the amount of additional probate duty paid for obtaining full representation for the entire estate. After exchange of lot of correspondence respondent on August 29, 1980 passed the impugned order declining to grant any relief to the petitioner. The ground 00 which respondent declined to give any relief to the petitioner was that there was no mistake apparent on the face of records which could be rectified by him under section 6? of the Act and as the case of the petitioner was not covered by the said section, therefore, the relief in the payment of Court -fees could not be granted to him. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter approached this Court with a prayer to quash Annexure ˜G order and to direct respondent to refund the said sum of Rs 13,106.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.