https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313719 The Calcutta HC dismissed the petition by the Collector of Stamp Revenue, ruling that properties held by Maurice with a general power of appointment are not part of his estate for probate duty purposes. The Court emphasized the absence of explicit legislative language in the Court-fees Act of 1870 to include such properties, underscoring the need for statutory clarity. The decision reflects the distinction between "property" and "power," indicating that a general power of appointment does not automatically constitute property liable to probate duty. The judgment calls for clearer legislative intent to expand the scope of probate duties to properties subject to such powers. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:37:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313719 The Calcutta HC dismissed the petition by the Collector of Stamp Revenue, ruling that properties held by Maurice with a general power of appointment are not part of his estate for probate duty purposes. The Court emphasized the absence of explicit legislative language in the Court-fees Act of 1870 to include such properties, underscoring the need for statutory clarity. The decision reflects the distinction between "property" and "power," indicating that a general power of appointment does not automatically constitute property liable to probate duty. The judgment calls for clearer legislative intent to expand the scope of probate duties to properties subject to such powers. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Mar 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313719