https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28936 The High Court declined to answer questions referred under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 because the accountable person failed to prosecute the reference. The applicant and her counsel were repeatedly absent, counsel later declined to continue after examining the record, and special process had been issued, showing no real interest in pursuing the court's opinion. Relying on the principle applied in Gajadhar Prasad Nathulal v. CWT, the court held that where the party at whose instance the reference is made does not prosecute it, the court may refuse to answer the referred questions. No order as to costs was made. en-us Mon, 09 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:16:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28936 The High Court declined to answer questions referred under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 because the accountable person failed to prosecute the reference. The applicant and her counsel were repeatedly absent, counsel later declined to continue after examining the record, and special process had been issued, showing no real interest in pursuing the court's opinion. Relying on the principle applied in Gajadhar Prasad Nathulal v. CWT, the court held that where the party at whose instance the reference is made does not prosecute it, the court may refuse to answer the referred questions. No order as to costs was made. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28936