Recall application under the Estate Duty Act failed where counsel's absence and provisional assessment arguments did not warrant reopening the earlier order.

A recall application under the Estate Duty Act was rejected because the asserted non-appearance of counsel did not justify reopening the earlier dismissal order. The court noted a separate challenge to whether the assessment was provisional rather than final, but treated that point as unnecessary to decide. Even on the assumption that the provisional assessment was without jurisdiction, that would not affect the power to make the final assessment, so the characterisation issue was academic for the recall request. The earlier order therefore remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier order dismissing the application under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, should be recalled.

Analysis: The application for recall was based on the asserted non-appearance of counsel at the earlier hearing. The Court also considered the challenge to the character of the assessment as provisional rather than final, but found it unnecessary to decide that question. Even assuming that the provisional assessment was without jurisdiction, that circumstance would not affect the power to make the final assessment. The validity of the earlier assessment characterization was therefore treated as academic for the purpose of the recall application.

Conclusion: The application for recall was rejected and the earlier order was not recalled.

---