https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356755 The Estate Duty Act, 1953 reserved appointment of Controllers of Estate Duty to the Central Government, so a Board notification assigning functions to Income-tax Officers could not itself create the statutory authority to assess. Rule 5 of the Estate Duty Rules, 1953 could operate only for a validly appointed Controller, and section 15 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 could not cure the absence of an underlying appointment power. The assessments were therefore without authority. The Bombay HC also accepted that the accountable person could raise the legality of the assessment at the second appellate stage, because the objection was a pure question of law needing no further factual inquiry. en-us Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 05:44:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356755 The Estate Duty Act, 1953 reserved appointment of Controllers of Estate Duty to the Central Government, so a Board notification assigning functions to Income-tax Officers could not itself create the statutory authority to assess. Rule 5 of the Estate Duty Rules, 1953 could operate only for a validly appointed Controller, and section 15 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 could not cure the absence of an underlying appointment power. The assessments were therefore without authority. The Bombay HC also accepted that the accountable person could raise the legality of the assessment at the second appellate stage, because the objection was a pure question of law needing no further factual inquiry. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356755