A.K. Mookerjee, J. - (1.) The Petitioner is the karta of a joint Mitakshara Hindu family consisting of himself and his brother. On February 6, 1957, the father of the Petitioner Ganga Singh died intestate. At the time of death of his father, both the Petitioner and his brother were minors. One Prannath Shegal, a maternal uncle of the Petitioner and his brother moved an application in the City Civil Court at Calcutta sometime in March 1967 for appointment of guardian of the minors and the said maternal uncle was appointed as guardian in August 1968. Jamuna Singh, a paternal uncle of the minors, preferred an appeal in this Court being Appeal from Original Order No. 642 of 1968. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated September 7, 1970, disposed of the said appeal holding, inter alia, that in the interest of the minors concerned the appointment of Prannath Shegal would continue until December 7, 1970, when the elder of the said two minors, namely, the Petitioner, would attain majority. It appears that the said guardian Prannath Shegal never filed an account of the properties of the deceased Ganga Singh in terms of Sec. 53 or Sec. 56 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, with the Estate Duty Authorities. After attaining majority on December 7, 1970, the Petitioner also did not file any such account of properties with the Estate Duty Authorities relating to the properties left by the said deceased Ganga Singh, as he was unaware, that such an account was required to be filed under the Act within six months from the date of his father's death. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application for grant of a succession certificate in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. On July 25, 1972, the learned Chief Judge by his order directed the Petitioner to produce a certificate as required under Sec. 56(2) of the Estate Duty Act and without which no grant of the said succession certificate could be made. Accordingly, the Petitioner was advised to file an account with the Estate Duty Authorities regarding the estate of the said deceased Ganga Singh, and on August 1972 the Petitioner filed an account of the properties left by the said deceased with the Assistant Controller, Estate Duty, showing therein the value of the estate approximately of Rs. 52,000. Thereupon, the Petitioner received a notice issued under Sec. 58(2) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, dated September 4, 1972, along with the questionnaire by the Respondent No. 1, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, A Ward, whereby the said Respondent No. 1 fixed the date of hearing of the matter on September 19, 1972. On September 19, 1972, the Petitioner appeared before the Respondent No. 1 and contended that no proceeding could be initiated in view of Sec. 73A of the Act, inasmuch as five years had already expired from the date of death of the deceased and, as such, the Respondent No. 1 had no power, authority and jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, or to issue notice under Sec. 58(2) of the said Act or to put any questionnaire thereunder, and by doing the same the Respondent No. 1 was proceeding entirely without jurisdiction. In spite of the said objection, the Respondent No. 1 fixed the next date of hearing on December 15, 1972. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said notice dated September 4, 1972, issued under Sec. 58(2) of the Act and the proceeding taken thereunder, moved this Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present rule and also an ad interim injunction restraining the Respondent No. 1 from proceeding for levy of any estate duty under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, until disposal of the rule.
(2.) It is contended by Mr. Deb, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, that in so far as the estate of late Ganga Singh is concerned, admittedly no proceeding for estate duty has been commenced within the period of five years from the date of his death and no order for assessment has been made under Sec. 58 of the Estate Duty Act. In view of the provisions in Sec. 73A(a) of the said Act, no proceeding can be initiated in respect of the properties and estate of Ganga Singh, since deceased, under the said Act. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, the Respondent No. 1, is proceeding entirely without jurisdiction and in excess of jurisdiction and illegally assumed jurisdiction under the said Act by issuing the said notice under Sec. 52 of the Act and a questionnaire thereunder and threatening to pass order under Sec. 58 of the said Act on the account submitted by the Petitioner. Mr. Deb, further, contended that the only order which the Respondent No. 1 could have passed was that, in view of the provisions of Sec. 73A(a) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, no proceeding under the said Act could be commenced in respect of the estate of late Ganga Singh and, as such, no estate duty was payable from the Petitioner. According to Mr. Deb, the said notice issued under Sec. 52 of the Act was illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and should be quashed.
(3.) Mr. Sen, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, raised two points. In the first place he contended that in the present case no proceeding for the levy of the estate duty was commenced by the Assistant Controller, but the Petitioner for the purpose of obtaining a certificate under Sec. 56(2) of the Act voluntarily submitted a statement of account. Although the said account, submitted by Mr. Sen, was not filed within the time specified in Sub -section (3) of Sec. 53 of the Act, but nonetheless it should be regarded as a valid statement and the Assistant Controller has got jurisdiction to issue a notice under Sec. 58 of the Act. How could the existence of a statement, Mr. Sen remarked, once it had been filed, be ignored, it was not a mere scrap of paper. In support of his contentions Mr. Sen relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income -tax, Bombay City II v/s. Ranchhoddas Karsondas (1959) : 36 I.T.R. 569 and in Commissioner of Income -tax, Punjab v/s. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., (1970) 77 I.T.R. 519.;