LAWS(P&H)-1975-12-5

PRITAM SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

Decided On December 01, 1975
PRITAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Pritam Singh, petitioner, to quash the notice dated October 8, 1974, annexure "P-2" to the writ petition, issued by the respondent, Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Patiala, directing him to file a statement of all the property chargeable to estate duty owned by his father, Gurbachan Singh, at the time of his death on March 27, 1971, for reassessment of the estate duty.

(2.) THE facts of this case, are that Gurbachan Singh, the father of the petitioner, Pritam Singh, who was a Jat Sikh, died on March 27, 1971. A notice under Section 55 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (No. 5 of 1953) (hereinafter described as "the Act"), was issued by the respondent to the petitioner for filing the return. In compliance with this direction the petitioner filed the return on March 13, 1972. THE petitioner in his return mentioned that the deceased owned land in three villages, namely, Dharampura Taraf Saidan Ludhiana, Resubra and Agwar Gujran. This was claimed to be ancestral property belonging to the joint Hindu family constituted by the deceased, Gurbachan Singh, and his sons, Pritam Singh and another. It was stated in the return that the deceased, Gurbachan Singh, and his sons constituted joint Hindu family and the land and the movable property mentioned below belonged to the said Hindu undivided family : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_661_ITR103_1976Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) SHRI B.D. Sethi, Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Patiala, filed an affidavit, wherein the facts mentioned in the writ petition were admitted. However, it was pleaded that the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Harbans Singh's case constituted "information" for the purpose of taking proceedings under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act and the impugned notice was valid and legal and there is no substance in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed. It was pleaded that Jat Sikhs and other agricultural tribes, which were previously governed by customary law, are not governed by the Mitakshara Hindu law and this writ petition is misconceived.