Estate duty amendment applies only prospectively, and writ relief was declined because an effective statutory remedy existed.

An amendment withdrawing estate duty operated only for property passing on death on or after 16 March 1985; where the deceased died earlier, the Estate Duty Act continued to apply and liability was not excluded for pending finalisation proceedings. The writ challenge was also not entertained because the statute provided an alternative remedy by reference under section 64(1) for the legal questions raised, making interference under article 226 inappropriate. The stated principle is that a tax or duty withdrawal applies only within the temporal limit expressly fixed in the amending provision, and writ relief will ordinarily be refused where an efficacious statutory remedy exists.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the newly inserted section 5(c) of the Estate Duty Act applied to deaths occurring before 16 March 1985 or to pending finalisation proceedings; and (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the petitioners' alternative statutory remedy under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act.

Issue (i): Whether the newly inserted section 5(c) of the Estate Duty Act applied to deaths occurring before 16 March 1985 or to pending finalisation proceedings.

Analysis: The amendment provided that the Estate Duty Act would cease to apply only in respect of property passing on the death of a person on or after 16 March 1985. The deceased in the petitioners' case had died much earlier, and nothing in the amending Act displaced the operation of the Estate Duty Act in pending matters where the death had occurred before that date.

Conclusion: The amended section 5(c) did not apply to the petitioners' case, and estate duty liability was not excluded on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the petitioners' alternative statutory remedy under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act.

Analysis: A reference application under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act was available for raising the legal questions urged in the writ petition. In these circumstances, the case did not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for interference under article 226 because an effective alternative statutory remedy was available.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the estate duty order failed both on merits and on the ground of availability of an adequate statutory remedy, leaving the departmental determination undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment withdrawing a tax or duty levy operates only within the temporal limit expressly stated in the amending provision, and writ relief will ordinarily be refused where the statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy for the legal questions raised.

---