Estate duty rectification was time-barred, and a later amendment could not revive an earlier assessment.

Rectification of an estate duty assessment was unavailable where the claim fell outside the unamended three-year period counted from the first determination of duty, the relevant valuation had already been appealed, and the application was framed as a refund claim rather than a proper rectification request. The later amendment enlarging the rectification period was held to be substantive, not declaratory, and therefore operated only prospectively from 1 July 1960; it could not revive earlier assessments. Section 50 was also read as referring to probate duty actually paid, not merely payable. On these statutory conditions, the rectification and refund claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's claim for rectification of the estate duty assessment and refund of excess duty was barred by limitation and otherwise unavailable under the rectification provisions of the Estate Duty Act.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of section 50 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the rectification provisions in section 62 as it originally stood, as distinct from section 61 inserted by the amending Act of 1958. The amended section 61 enlarged the period for rectification and was held not to be declaratory of the pre-existing law. It was treated as affecting vested rights and as operative only from 1 July 1960, so it could not apply to assessments completed before that date. Under the unamended section 62, rectification was confined to cases of mistake apparent from the record, was available only within three years from the first determination of estate duty, and was excluded where the valuation had already been the subject of appeal. On the facts, the first assessment was made in 1957, the later claim for rectification was made only in 1962, and the relevant valuation had already been appealed against. The Court also held that the application suffered from defects, including that it was directed as a refund claim rather than a proper rectification application, and that section 50 referred to probate duty actually paid, not merely payable.

Conclusion: The petitioner's rectification and refund claim was barred by limitation and failed on the statutory conditions governing rectification and reduction of estate duty.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for rectification of estate duty assessment under the unamended rectification provision must be made within the statutory period counted from the first determination of duty, cannot be used where the valuation has already been appealed, and cannot be enlarged by a later amendment that is not retrospective.

---