Tribunal must apply statutory provision despite vires challenge when fixing estate duty rate on joint family property

A Tribunal acting under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 must apply section 34(1)(c) when determining the rate of duty, and it cannot disregard that provision on the footing that it is unconstitutional. Even where High Court decisions on validity are conflicting, the Tribunal lacks competence to rule on vires and must proceed on the statutory provision as operative until it is validly set aside in appropriate proceedings. The sons' shares in joint family property were therefore required to be taken into account for rate purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether the shares of the sons of the deceased in joint family property could be taken into account for determining the rate of duty on the deceased's share under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis: At the time the Tribunal decided the appeal, there were conflicting High Court decisions on the validity of section 34(1)(c), one upholding it and another striking it down. The Tribunal could not treat the provision as non-existent merely because one High Court had declared it ultra vires, particularly when another High Court had upheld its validity. A Tribunal constituted under the Act cannot consider the vires of the provisions under which it functions, and therefore it was not justified in ignoring section 34(1)(c) while determining the rate of duty.

Conclusion: The answer is in the affirmative, and the issue is decided in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal was bound to apply section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, for rate purposes and could not disregard it on the footing that it was unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi: A Tribunal cannot ignore or decline to apply a statutory provision on the basis that it is ultra vires, since questions of vires are outside its competence and the provision remains operative until validly set aside in appropriate proceedings.

---