Disjunctive reading of authorised representative rules upheld for estate duty practice before authorities.

Rule 41 of the Estate Duty Rules was construed as creating two independent classes of authorised representatives: income-tax practitioners under clause (i) and persons who had appeared before income-tax authorities before the 1958 amendment under clause (ii). The wording, including the punctuation and the placement of "and" before the third clause, supported reading clauses (i) and (ii) disjunctively, with clause (iii) qualifying both. On that construction, a person satisfying clause (i) and not falling within clause (iii) was eligible to act before the estate duty authorities without also meeting clause (ii).

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 41 of the Estate Duty Rules required clauses (i) and (ii) to be read conjunctively or disjunctively, and whether the petitioner was entitled to be recognised as an authorised representative before the estate duty authorities.

Analysis: Section 83 of the Estate Duty Act permits representation by persons possessing prescribed qualifications. Rule 41 created two classes of eligible representatives: one comprising income-tax practitioners as defined under Section 61 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and another comprising persons who had appeared before income-tax authorities as income-tax practitioners before the commencement of the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958. The structure of the rule, including the semicolons and the use of 'and' before the third clause, supported reading the first two clauses independently, with sub-clause (iii) applying to both. On that construction, a person satisfying clause (i) and not hit by clause (iii) was eligible without also needing to satisfy clause (ii).

Conclusion: Rule 41(i) and Rule 41(ii) were held to be disjunctive, subject to Rule 41(iii), and the petitioner was entitled to appear before the estate duty authorities.

---