ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. SITARAMA UDUPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question for decision in this petition is whether the provisions of section 80 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, are applicable to the case or the provision of section 80 of the Estate Duty Act which has been replaced by the Finance Act, 1964.

(2.) The learned advocate for the respondent argued that though the Finance Act, 1964, has come into force on the 1st of April, 1964, and the order in revision had been made prior to that date, nevertheless, the subsequent event should be taken into consideration when interfering with the order of the lower court, even if the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of the repealed section 80 of the Estate Duty Act. Whereas it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that retrospective effect cannot be given to the Finance Act. That being so, the case is governed by the old section 80 of the Estate Duty Act, and, if it is governed by the provisions of the said section, the order of the lower court is unsustainable.

(3.) The facts which are necessary to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties briefly stated ar : That a suit was filed by one Sitarama Udupa (O. S. No. 141 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsiff of Karkala, S. K.) against the defendants in respect of the debt due from one Gopalacharya, the father of the defendants. In the suit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants have admitted the suit loan and they have also executed a "Krayapatti" on April 23, 1959, in favour of the plaintiff. Therein, the plaintiff further stated that the suit loan has been shown as a debt in the statement submitted by the defendants to the Controller, Estate Duty-cum-Income-tax, Madurai. The defendants denied the allegation made by the plaintiff in his plaint. In that suit, plaintiff filed an application in the court for the issue of a certificate to enable him to obtain copies of the documents from the Controller of Estate Duty, Madurai. It may be mentioned here that that application was not opposed by the defendants. Allowing the application the court issued summons to the Assistant Controller, Estate Duty, Madurai, directing him to produce the documents mentioned in the application, i.e., items Nos. 1 - 4. It is not necessary to refer to item No. 1, because it has been conceded by the parties that the said document cannot be summoned. Items Nos. 2 to 4 ar : Item No. 2 - the order passed by the Assistant Controller, Estate Duty, Madurai, item No. 3 - notice of the assessment order dated December 28, 1958, served upon the 1st defendant in the suit and item No. 4 - entries contained in the file (F) No. G. 14 of the year 1958 of the office of the Assistant Controller, Estate Duty-cum-Income-Tax Circle, Madurai, relating to the estate of Sri T. G. Gopala Rao. It appears that the officer concerned produced the documents in the court. He, however, on the same day requested the court to return the documents to him on the ground that they were required for his reference. But the undertook to produce the same whenever called for on a later date. On that under taking the documents were returned to the officer by the court. Subsequently, the said officer claimed privilege under section 80 of the Estate Duty Act of 1953. The learned munsiff, by the order in revision, held that the privilege claimed by the other (Assistant Controller, Estate Duty) does not extend to documents, items Nos. 2 to 4, and since the parties had conceded that item No. 1 is covered by section 80 of the Estate Duty Act, the learned munsiff directed the Assistant Controller, Estate Duty, Madurai, to produce the documants, items No. 2 to 4, excluding item No. 1. In the concluding paragraph of his order, the learned munsiff held that documents, items Nos. 2 to 4, do not come within the meaning of the words "accounts" or "statements" or "documents" or "evidence" or "affidavits" given, produced or obtained in connection with, or in the course of, proceedings under the Estate Duty Act. He was of the view that he said documents may form part of the record relating to the Estate Duty Act, but section 80, in terms, does not refer to such a record and therefore the privilege claimed is not available so far as these documents are concerned.