https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38922 The Central Government's discretion under section 52 of the Estate Duty Act to accept property in lieu of estate duty was held to have been validly exercised where the record showed actual consideration of the application and a decision to the offer, even though the communication was issued through the Central Board of Direct Taxes. That communication defect did not vitiate the substantive decision or justify writ interference. The absence of a more elaborate speaking order also did not warrant interference under article 226 because the reasons for refusal were disclosed in the counter-affidavit and the competent authority had acted on the matter. No ground for certiorari or mandamus was made out. en-us Tue, 14 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:32:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38922 The Central Government's discretion under section 52 of the Estate Duty Act to accept property in lieu of estate duty was held to have been validly exercised where the record showed actual consideration of the application and a decision to the offer, even though the communication was issued through the Central Board of Direct Taxes. That communication defect did not vitiate the substantive decision or justify writ interference. The absence of a more elaborate speaking order also did not warrant interference under article 226 because the reasons for refusal were disclosed in the counter-affidavit and the competent authority had acted on the matter. No ground for certiorari or mandamus was made out. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38922