S.K. Keshote, J. - (1.) : The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, on the application of the CED, Jodhpur in R.A. No. 216/Jp/1997 (arising out of EDA No. 4/Jp/1993), under its order dt. 16th June, 1998, referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in law in holding that levying of interest under s. 70(1) of the ED Act in this case was invalid ? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in law in holding that a separate order had to be passed by the Asstt. CED for valid levy of interest under s. 70(1) of the ED Act ?" The facts, leading to reference of these two questions for the opinion of the Court, are that late Shri Paras Raj G. Shah, the assessee, died on 16th March, 1982. The return of estate was required to be filed within six months, from the date of expiry by the accountable person. The return of the estate duty was filed on 22nd Oct., 1984 by Smt. Neela Devi P. Shah, the widow of the assessee. The AO, while completing the assessment, charged interest under s. 70(1) of the ED Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act, 1953') on the ground that instalment was granted subject to payment of interest. The matter was carried in appeal to the CED(A). On the point of this interest charged under s. 70 (1) of the Act, 1953 the appellate Court confirmed the order of the CED, Jodhpur.
(2.) THE accountable person took the matter further in appeal to the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. That appeal came to be decided on 2nd May, 1997. THE learned Tribunal accepted the contention of the accountable person and levy of the interest under s. 70(1) of the Act, 1953 was held not valid and accordingly ordered for deletion thereof. THE Revenue filed an application for reference of the two questions of law aforestated and, as said in the preceding paragraphs of this order the learned Tribunal referred the questions for opinion, to this Court under the impugned order and that is how the matter is before us. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that installation had been granted in favour of the accountable person for payment of the estate duty. The authorised officer had levied interest under s. 70(1) of the Act at the time of the original assessment and also in the setting aside proceedings. The learned Tribunal held relying on the decisions in the cases of Prem Nath Khandelwal vs. Asstt. CED (1970) 77 ITR 949 (Cal) and H.M. Jaffer vs. Asstt. CED (1980) 124 ITR 443 (Kar) held that in order to levy the interest under s. 70(1) of the Act a separate and speaking order has to be passed by the Asstt. CED. The learned Tribunal also observed that besides passing a separate order it is also necessary that such order should be passed before the assessed duty has been paid up. That was not the case of the Department and the learned Tribunal has held this levy of interest to be invalid and accordingly ordered for deletion thereof. The ED Act, 1953 was itself repealed in the year 1985 and these questions referred for the decision of this Court is no longer of any general public importance. The questions of law referred for adjudication of this Court in present reference are really sterile as it could not arise hereafter. The learned Tribunal has decided the matter in favour of the accountable person relying on the aforesaid two decisions and the Act itself has been repealed it may not be now in the larger interest of the Department or the accountable person to consider the matter in core depth and decide the same. Even if two views are possible on the scope of s. 70(1) of the Act and one of them had appealed to the Tribunal and had been accepted by the High Courts and the view could not also be said not to advance the cause of justice, there is no justification to interfere where the Act itself has since ceased to exist. Our this view has been fortified by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CED vs. Roshan Jahangir Gandhi (1994) 117 CTR (SC) 47 : (1994) 205 ITR 428 (SC). Accordingly, this reference is returned unanswered. ;