Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether limitation under section 73A of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 commences from issuance of notice under section 59(a) or from its service on the accountable person, and whether that question constituted a referable question of law warranting a reference to the High Court.
Analysis: The petition sought a reference under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The Tribunal had held that proceedings under section 59 begin only on service of notice and had treated the assessment proceedings as time-barred. On the record, the dispute turned on the legal point whether mere issuance of notice was sufficient to start limitation or whether service was necessary. That question was not merely factual but raised a legal issue of limitation arising from the Tribunal's view on the commencement of proceedings under section 59(a).
Conclusion: The question was held to be a referable question of law, and the petition was allowed with a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the formulated question to the High Court.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's refusal to make a reference was set aside and the matter was directed to be referred for opinion on the limitation issue.
Ratio Decidendi: For proceedings under section 59(a) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the point at which limitation begins and whether issuance or service of notice is determinative is a legal question capable of reference under section 64 when the Tribunal has applied that issue to dispose of the case.