TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes interest order for petitioner paying estate duty in installments</h1> <h3>Banwarilal Sikaria Versus Assistant Controller Of Estate-Duty And Others</h3> Banwarilal Sikaria Versus Assistant Controller Of Estate-Duty And Others - [1993] 201 ITR 79, 113 CTR 288 Issues:1. Imposition of interest on the petitioner by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty.2. Jurisdiction of the Controller to impose interest on the assessed amount of estate duty after it had been paid in installments.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty imposing interest at 12% per annum. The petitioner's mother passed away leaving a will, and the petitioner was accountable under the Estate Duty Act. The Controller determined the estate value and duty payable, allowing the petitioner to pay in installments with interest. However, the petitioner failed to pay the full amount as directed, leading to repeated requests for payment and reassessment of the estate value. The Controller eventually imposed interest on the petitioner for delay in payment, prompting the petitioner to challenge the order.2. The key question was whether the Controller had the jurisdiction to impose interest on the petitioner after the assessed duty had been paid, albeit in installments. Section 70 of the Act allows for postponement of duty payment with interest, but the Controller must specify the rate of interest when allowing installment payments. In this case, the Controller did not specify the interest rate when permitting installment payments. The petitioner paid the entire assessed duty gradually, without a specific directive from the Controller regarding interest. Previous case law supported the view that interest could not be imposed after the full duty had been paid without a specific order from the Controller. The Court held that the Controller's order imposing interest after full payment was made without jurisdiction, and thus, the order was quashed.In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and stating that no costs were to be awarded in the case.
TaxTMI 