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 a civil suit seeking refund of estate duty already paid under protest was maintainable in view of the statutory bar under the Estate Duty Act.
Analysis: Section 78 of the Estate Duty Act bars a suit in a civil court to set aside or modify an estate duty determination and also bars proceedings against the Government or its officers for acts done in good faith under the Act. The payment had been made pursuant to the liability asserted under the Act and in the course of attachment proceedings. Relying on the principle applied in the analogous bar under section 293 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Court held that the real effect of the suit was to question action taken under the taxing statute. The objection of maintainability was treated as a pure question of law and was permitted to be raised at the appellate stage.
Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable and the challenge to recovery of the estate duty amount failed.
Final Conclusion: The statutory bar under the Estate Duty Act prevailed, the refund suit was dismissed, and the Revenue's appeal succeeded, while liberty was given to seek remission before the Board under section 71.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a suit would, in substance, set aside, modify, or indirectly challenge an estate duty determination or recovery action taken in good faith under the Act, it is barred by section 78 of the Estate Duty Act.