https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8787 Section 52 of the Estate Duty Act was construed as a beneficial mode of payment designed to ease hardship where an accountable person had immovable property but insufficient cash. On that reading, the expression "may" was treated as mandatory in substance once the price was agreed, so the Government could not arbitrarily refuse the offer. A bare rejection without reasons was held arbitrary and invalid, and later explanations in the counter-affidavit could not cure the defect. The rejection was quashed and the authorities were directed to reconsider the offer according to law. en-us Wed, 06 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8787 Section 52 of the Estate Duty Act was construed as a beneficial mode of payment designed to ease hardship where an accountable person had immovable property but insufficient cash. On that reading, the expression "may" was treated as mandatory in substance once the price was agreed, so the Government could not arbitrarily refuse the offer. A bare rejection without reasons was held arbitrary and invalid, and later explanations in the counter-affidavit could not cure the defect. The rejection was quashed and the authorities were directed to reconsider the offer according to law. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8787