Statutory valuation finality limits tribunal review and bars a third valuer unless a genuine difference of opinion exists.

Under the statutory valuation mechanism, once two valuers reach a joint decision, the Tribunal must act conformably to that valuation and cannot insist on a third valuer unless there is a real difference of opinion. The Tribunal also cannot reopen the joint report to test its general validity or correctness and is bound to proceed on the statutory valuation outcome. A reference arising only from an interlocutory procedural order is not competent, because a valid reference must stem from an order disposing of the appeal as contemplated by the statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, when the dispute as to value is referred under the statutory valuation mechanism, the Tribunal is bound to act on the valuers' joint decision and cannot insist on reference to a third valuer in the absence of a real difference of opinion; (ii) whether the Tribunal could decline to examine the validity or correctness of the valuers' report and act on the report dated 6 October 1970; (iii) whether the reference in T.C. No. 274 of 1972 arising from an interlocutory procedural order was competent.

Issue (i): Whether, when the dispute as to value is referred under the statutory valuation mechanism, the Tribunal is bound to act on the valuers' joint decision and cannot insist on reference to a third valuer in the absence of a real difference of opinion.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 63(6) requires the Tribunal, once valuation is referred to two valuers, to proceed conformably to their decision. The proviso is attracted only where there is a genuine difference of opinion between the two valuers. The provision makes the valuers' decision final on the question of valuation, leaving no scope for the Tribunal to substitute its own view or to require a third valuer merely because separate preliminary estimates were given before the valuers acted jointly. On the facts, the later joint report represented the operative valuation decision.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was right in refusing to refer the matter to a third valuer, and the objection of the revenue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could decline to examine the validity or correctness of the valuers' report and act on the report dated 6 October 1970.

Analysis: The controlling provisions of section 63(5) and section 63(6) require the Tribunal to pass orders conformably to the valuers' decision on valuation. Once the statutory mechanism is set in motion, the Tribunal is bound by that decision and cannot go behind it to reassess correctness or validity on general grounds. The Tribunal was therefore entitled to accept and act upon the joint report and was not required to enter upon the Arbitration Act-based challenge raised by the revenue.

Conclusion: The Tribunal correctly acted on the joint report and rightly declined to inquire into its validity or correctness; this issue was decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the reference in T.C. No. 274 of 1972 arising from an interlocutory procedural order was competent.

Analysis: A reference lies only from an order disposing of the appeal in the manner contemplated by section 63(5). An interlocutory order dealing merely with procedure does not amount to an appeal-disposing order and cannot found a valid reference. The question referred in T.C. No. 274 of 1972 therefore did not arise from a competent reference.

Conclusion: The reference in T.C. No. 274 of 1972 was incompetent and the Court declined to answer it.

Final Conclusion: The statutory valuation determined by the valuers was held to be conclusive for estate duty assessment, the revenue's challenge to the valuation mechanism failed, and the procedural reference based on an interlocutory order was not entertainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute makes the valuers' decision final and requires the Tribunal to act conformably to that decision, the Tribunal cannot reopen the valuation or insist on further reference unless the statutory condition for a third valuer is actually satisfied.

---