1969 (12) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cancellation of an order imposing penalty of Rs. 3,000 in the first instance for non-payment of Rs. 35,000 as estate duty by the Assistant Controller on 25th March, 1964, under the Estate Duty Act. Shortly put, the facts are as follows : The petitioner is a lessee in respect of premises No. 13, Indian Exchange Place, Calcutta, which belonged to one Rai Bhupati Nath Deb Bahadur who died on Septe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in respect of the said premises No. 13, Indian Exchange Place, Calcutta. Since payment was made to the landlords and not to the Assistant Controller, in spite of notice under section 46(5A), by the petitioner, impugned order was ultimately made to the notice (sic) to the petitioner by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty imposing penalty of Rs. 3,000 and demanding a payment for Rs. 35,000 b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,000 and demanding a payment of Rs. 3,000 from him. The petitioner, in spite of the above provisions, not having preferred an appeal, we are reluctant to interfere in this matter under article 227 of the Constitution. Even on merits we are satisfied that there is no substance. The only point placed before us on behalf of the petitioner was that the petitioner was a lessee under certain perso....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has been taken for the assessment of duty in respect of the estate of the deceased. On the admitted position of the parties it is clear that the petitioner's alleged lessors are, no doubt, intermeddlers with the estate of the deceased and as such accountable for the estate duty. In any event, the petitioner has, at least, interest in the matter. He might have a business to question the correctn....