Pritam Singh Pattar, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Pritam Singh, petitioner, to quash the notice dated October 8, 1974, annexure "P-2" to the writ petition, issued by the respondent, Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Patiala, directing him to file a statement of all the property chargeable to estate duty owned by his father, Gurbachan Singh, at the time of his death on March 27, 1971, for reassessment of the estate duty.
(2.) THE facts of this case, are that Gurbachan Singh, the father of the petitioner, Pritam Singh, who was a Jat Sikh, died on March 27, 1971. A notice under Section 55 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (No. 5 of 1953) (hereinafter described as "the Act"), was issued by the respondent to the petitioner for filing the return. In compliance with this direction the petitioner filed the return on March 13, 1972. THE petitioner in his return mentioned that the deceased owned land in three villages, namely, Dharampura Taraf Saidan Ludhiana, Resubra and Agwar Gujran. This was claimed to be ancestral property belonging to the joint Hindu family constituted by the deceased, Gurbachan Singh, and his sons, Pritam Singh and another. It was stated in the return that the deceased, Gurbachan Singh, and his sons constituted joint Hindu family and the land and the movable property mentioned below belonged to the said Hindu undivided family : JUDGEMENT_661_ITR103_1976Html1.htm The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, after hearing the petitioner, held that the total value of the movable and immovable property owned by the joint Hindu family was Rs. 4,95,539, wherein the deceased had one-third share amounting to Rs. 1,65,180. After deducting the funeral and other expenses, he assessed the estate duty payable on the share of the deceased in the joint Hindu family property : vide his order dated May 1, 1973, copy whereof is annexure " P-1 " to the writ petition. The respondent issued the impugned notice dated October 8, 1974, copy whereof is annexure "P-2" to the writ petition, under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act to the petitioner alleging that in the judgment in Controller of Estate Duty v. Harbans Singh (Estate Duty Reference No. 1 of 1973, decided on January 17, 1974) by a Division Bench of this court, it was pointed out that by the mere enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, it could not be held that the custom had been abrogated and the agriculturists started being governed by the Mitakshara Hindu law, etc. The petitioner was directed to file account of all property assessable to estate duty as the property escaped assessment and it was under-assessed at too low a rate. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition to quash this notice, annexure "P-2", on the allegations that it is illegal, invalid and void, that the above-said judgment relied upon by the department, which is reported as Controller of Estate Duty v. Harbans Singh, [1975] 98ITR 331 (Punj) did not lay down the correct law, that no reasons were given therein, that by virtue of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act custom in matters of suc-cession, if any, had been abrogated, that the Sikhs are Hindus and they are governed by their personal law, which is Hindu law, and the onus lay on the department to prove the alleged custom but it was not done and that no appeal against the order, annexure " P-1", was filed by the department, which has become final between the parties, and the notice being illegal may be quashed. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent.
(3.) SHRI B.D. Sethi, Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Patiala, filed an affidavit, wherein the facts mentioned in the writ petition were admitted. However, it was pleaded that the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Harbans Singh's case constituted "information" for the purpose of taking proceedings under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act and the impugned notice was valid and legal and there is no substance in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed. It was pleaded that Jat Sikhs and other agricultural tribes, which were previously governed by customary law, are not governed by the Mitakshara Hindu law and this writ petition is misconceived. The contents of the assessment order dated May 1, 1973, copy whereof is annexure "P-1" to the writ petition of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty have been given in the earlier part of the judgment and need not be repeated here. Annexure "P-2", is the copy of the impugned notice dated October 8, 1974, issued, by the respondent to the petitioner, and it reads as follows : "In the matter of estate of late Shri Gurbachan Singh. Whereas I have reason to believe that property chargeable to estate duty has: (a) escaped assessment. (b) been under-assessed. (c) been assessed at too low a rate. You are requested to deliver to me not later than 30 days an account of all property in respect of which duty is payable." ;