KHAN BAHADUR C K MAMMAD KOYI, TELLICHERRY Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER, ESTATE DUTY CUM INCOME-TAX CIRCLE, COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (19-12-1960) This petition seeking a writ of certiorari arises under the following circumstances. The petitioner is the Karnavan and manager of an impartible tarwad governed by the Moplah Marumakatayam Act (Madras Act XVII of 1939). In January 1956, the Income-tax Officer, Tellicherry, called upon the petitioner to furnish him with particulars of the estate of the late Chowakkaran Keloth Kunhamina. The petitioner informed the Income-tax Officer that the late Kunhamina, who was a member of the tarwad, had no assets whatsoever and had no estate belonging to her which devolved on any other person. In this letter, the petitioner stated that the tarwad had been registered under Sec. 21 of Madras Act XVII of 1939, with the result that the last Kunhimina as well as other members of the tarwad had no right to claim a share in the tarwad properties. Thereupon, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty called upon the petitioner to produce the record relating to the registration of the tarwad as impartible. This was apparently done. Thereafter, the Assistant Controller, seeking to examine the contention that on the death of a member of a tarwad registered as impartible, as stated above, no share in the tarwad properties passed to any other member, posted the case for hearing and directed the petitioner to appear before him. Owing to various reasons an enquiry was not conducted, and finally, on 4-1-1957, the Assistant Controller wrote to the petitioner to this effect:

(2.) Upon this direction of the Assistant Controller, the petitioner has come to this court seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari claiming that the decision of the Assistant Controller, that the share of the deceased in the tarwad properties will be liable to estate duty under Sec. 7 of the Act, is totally without jurisdiction, illegal and unjustifiable, and that the reasons on which the Assistant Controller came to this conclusion are patent errors of law on the face of the order.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the department, after setting out the reasons which led the Assistant Controller to come to the conclusion that is now challenged, it was stated that the petition is premature, as, except for the issue of the notice calling for a return, no proceedings have been taken, nor the assessment completed on the petitioner.