Constitutional validity of estate duty aggregation upheld by preferring the majority High Court view over a contrary precedent.

Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was treated as constitutionally valid because the majority judicial view of the High Courts supported validity, and that view was preferred over the contrary Madras view. The Tribunal noted that no Bombay High Court decision was shown against validity, and a dismissal of special leave in another matter did not justify rejecting the prevailing line of authority, particularly when the constitutional question was already pending before the Supreme Court in a separate case. The aggregation of lineal descendants' interests in the Mitakshara coparcenary was therefore restored and the assessee's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, which requires aggregation of the interests of lineal descendants in a Mitakshara coparcenary for determining the rate of estate duty, is constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that several High Courts, other than the Madras High Court, had upheld the constitutional validity of the provision. It preferred the preponderant judicial view on the question of constitutional validity, particularly as no Bombay High Court decision was shown and the contrary Madras view was not to be followed merely because a special leave petition in another matter had been dismissed, especially when the constitutional issue was already pending before the Supreme Court in another case. The Tribunal also held that where there is a conflict of views on constitutional validity, the view sustaining validity should ordinarily be preferred when supported by the majority of High Courts.

Conclusion: Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 is constitutionally valid; the aggregation made by the Assistant Controller was restored and the assessee's challenge failed.

---