Decree for Estate Duty Protest Suit Denied on Appeal Due to Act Compliance

The suit for the recovery of estate duty paid under protest was decreed by the trial court but dismissed on appeal, as no suit can set aside proceedings under the Act. The court found the suit not maintainable under Section 78 of the Estate Duty Act, as it questioned government actions in good faith. The Revenue deposited 50% of the decretal amount during the appeal, and the court directed respondents to apply for waiving estate duty outstanding for over 20 years under Section 71, with no coercive steps until a decision. Appeal allowed with no costs, setting a timeline for the waiver application.

---

---

Issues:
1. Suit for recovery of estate duty paid under protest.
2. Validity of the suit under Section 78 of the Estate Duty Act.
3. Direction to deposit decretal amount during the pendency of appeal.
4. Application for waiver of estate duty under Section 71 of the Estate Duty Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a suit for the recovery of estate duty paid under protest by the plaintiff, who argued that she was not liable to pay the duty. The plaintiff paid Rs. 25,000 under protest after the property belonging to her minor sons was attached by estate duty authorities. The trial court decreed the suit, but the learned single judge dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that no suit can be brought to set aside or modify any proceeding taken under the Act, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

2. The main contention was whether the suit was maintainable under Section 78 of the Estate Duty Act, which is similar to Section 293 of the Income-tax Act. The plaintiff argued that the amount was paid under coercion and sought recovery. However, the court held that since the suit questioned actions taken in good faith by the government, it was not maintainable under Section 78. Despite this plea not being raised earlier, the court allowed it to be raised at the LPA stage, ultimately dismissing the suit.

3. During the appeal, the learned single judge directed the Revenue to deposit 50% of the decretal amount for granting a stay of operation of the decree. The Revenue complied with this direction, and the plaintiff withdrew the amount. This direction was a procedural aspect of the case during the pendency of the appeal.

4. The court directed the respondents to apply before the Board for waiving the estate duty outstanding for over 20 years since the death, as permitted under Section 71 of the Estate Duty Act. The court emphasized that no coercive steps should be taken by the Revenue until a decision was made on the application for waiver. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded. The court provided a timeline for the application and subsequent decision by the Board regarding the waiver of estate duty.

---