MURLIDHAR PUSARAM Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY ASST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under art. 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedingsunder the E.D. Act, 1953 (hereinafter 'the Act'), and the question relates to the legality and validity of the noticedated March 18, 1980, issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner seeking to reopen the assessment in question.

(2.) THE petitioner is the accountable person of deceased Pusaram Ramchandra (hereinafter 'the deceased'), who died on September 18, 1969. The deceased was a partner in two firms, viz., (a) M/s. Jawarmal Ramkaran, and (b) M/s. Radhakishan Ramchandra. On April 4, 1970, the petitioner field estate duty return disclosing the total chargeable estate of the deceased at Rs. 3,46,040. In the said return was also categorically disclosed the interest of the deceased in the above two partnership firms. Interest of the deceased in M/s. Jawarmal Ramkaran was valued at Rs. 2,54,548 and his interest in M/s. Radhakishan Ramchandra was valued at Rs. 56,536. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the 1st respondent did not accept the return filed as it was but took into consideration the fact that the goodwill of the aforesaid two partnership firms and the interest of the deceased therein had not been computed and included in the return though the same constituted a part of the estate of the deceased. The 1st respondent, consequently, valued the goodwill of the two partnership firms and, consistent with the share of the deceased in the partnership firms, allocated his share in the goodwill accordingly and added the said share to the total estate liable to duty. The exemption claimed in relation to annuity deposit was not granted and the amount thereof was also included in the total estate. The order of assessment was passed on March 31, 1977. As per the petitioner's learned counsel, this order was challenged in appeal to the extent it related to computation of the goodwill and including the share of the deceased therein in the total estate liable to duty and, in appeal, some, modification in the quantum of the goodwill was effected.

(3.) HEARING submissions of the respective counsel and going through the petition and the affidavit in reply and the authorities to which my attention was invited by Mr. V. J. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner, I find the impugned notice to be unsustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed.