Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appeals against penalty were competent having regard to the proviso to section 62(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, when the duty demand had been modified and the first instalment under the revised demand had been paid before disposal of the appeals.
Analysis: The proviso to section 62(1) bars an appeal against an order imposing penalty unless the duty has been paid before the appeal is filed. On the facts, the original demand of duty was later modified by the Assistant Controller himself, who reduced the duty payable and kept the balance in abeyance pending the appeal. The appellate authority had also before it the later position that the revised demand had been acted upon and the first instalment had been tendered and realised. In these circumstances, the demand on which the penalty had proceeded could not be treated as remaining wholly unpaid, and the statutory precondition for maintainability had to be tested against the modified demand.
Conclusion: The appeals were competent and could not be dismissed for non-compliance with the proviso to section 62(1); the finding was in favour of the accountable person.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the duty demand is modified by the authority before disposal of the appeal and the duty payable under the revised demand has been paid in the manner required, the pre-deposit condition for an appeal against penalty is satisfied.