Liberal construction of appeal maintainability under the Estate Duty Act upheld once duty was paid before hearing.

Appeal maintainability under the Estate Duty Act was construed liberally in relation to the proviso to section 62(1). Although the entire duty had not been paid when the appeal was filed, the accountable person was allowed instalment payment and the full demand was discharged before the appeal was heard. On that factual basis, the technical objection to competence failed, and the Appellate Controller's entertainment of the appeal was treated as condonation of the delay under section 62(2). The objection based on non-payment at filing was rejected, and the appeal was competent to be heard and disposed of.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Controller was competent to entertain the appeal against penalty when the entire estate duty had not been paid on the date of filing the appeal.

Analysis: The reference arose under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and turned on the proper construction of the proviso to section 62(1) of that Act. The accountable person had been permitted to pay the duty in instalments, and the entire demand was paid before the appeal was heard. The Court held that the appeal provisions should receive a liberal construction, that the question of maintainability lost significance once the duty had been paid before hearing, and that the Appellate Controller, by entertaining the appeal after such payment, must be taken to have condoned the delay under section 62(2). The technical objection based on non-payment at the time of filing was rejected on the facts.

Conclusion: The Appellate Controller was competent to entertain and dispose of the appeal, and the objection to jurisdiction failed in favour of the accountable person.

---