K.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the assessment order dated January 29, 1972, and those given in the appeals by the Zonal Controller of Estate Duty and that of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 14, 1972, and September 13, 1972, respectively. The relevant facts are as under : One Lala Ram Mohan Das, who owned considerable properties, died on June 27, 1967. Badri Vishal Tandon, his son, filed statement of account on January 25, 1968. Apart from self-acquired individual properties, the deceased held certain ancestral properties in the capacity of karta of the joint Hindu undivided family. The Estate Duty Officer, acting under Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, clubbed the value of the interest of the deceased in the joint family with that of the other coparceners and determined the rate of the estate duty payable on the property passing on his death. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Zonal Controller of Estate Duty. He substantially allowed the appeal of the petitioner on other controversies, but maintained the decision of the Estate Duty Officer on this question. The second appeal filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. As a result of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner was held liable to pay Rs. 96,846 as estate duty. But, if the shares of the male lineal descendants were not aggregated for rate purposes then the duty payable on the share of the deceased, which passed on his death, would have come to Rs. 57,925. Consequently, the petitioner asserts that the demand of Rs. 38,941 on account of aggregation is unjustified unconstitutional and illegal.
(2.) LEARNED Advocate-General, appearing for the petitioner, has challenged the excess levy of the estate duty on the ground that the provisions of Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") providing for aggregation of the shares of lineal descendants with that of the deceased are ultra vires the Constitution as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. To appreciate the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and the scope of Section 34(1)(c) of the Act, we may also consider some of its other provisions which would help us in deciding the controversy. Section 2(15) defines "property "as including" any interest in property, movable or immovable, the proceeds of sale thereof and any money or investment for the time being representing the proceeds of sale and also including any property converted from one species into another by any method". As we are not concerned with the Explanations to this definition, it is not necessary for us to mention them. Section 2(16) defines "property passing on the death" as under : "'Property passing on the death' includes property passing either immediately on the death or after any interval either certainly or contingently, and either originally or by way of substitutive limitation, and 'on the death' includes 'at a period fiscertainable only by reference to the death'."
(3.) SECTION 5 is the charging section providing for the extent of charge under the Act. Sub-section (1) is alone relevant for our purpose. The same reads us under : "In the case of every person dying after the commencement of this Act, there shall, save as hereinafter expressly provided, be levied and paid upon the principal value ascertained as hereinafter provided of all property, settled or not settled, including agricultural land situtate in the territories which immediately before 1st November, 1956, were comprised in the States specified in the First Schedule to this Act, and in the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu and Pondicherry, which passes on the death of such person, a duty called 'estate duty' at the rates fixed in accordance with SECTION 35." Sections 6 to 16 are under the heading "Property which is deemed to pass". Section 7 alone deserves to be mentioned in this regard. This provides that the property in which the deceased or any other person had an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased, shall be deemed to pass on the deceased's death to the extent to which a benefit accrues or arises by the cesser of such interest, including, in particular, a coparcenary interest in the joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara, Marumak-kattayam or Aliyasantana law. Section 34 deals with aggregation.;