NITA TANEJA Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY ASST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ for quashing annexure 3, the notice issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 61 of the E.D. Act, 1953 (the Act), and annexure 5, the order passed by respondent No. 1 regarding the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that Vijoy Pratap Taneja (V.P. Taneja) and his brother, N.K. Taneja, were owners of a number of joint family properties. THEre was a partition between the two brothers and half of the property, movable and immovable, was allotted to V.P. Taneja. THEre was an immovable property at Delhi and one at Dhanbad which were kept joint between the two brothers. V.P. Taneja died leving behind the petitioner, his widow, the only heir.

(3.) MR. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the order of the assessing authority merged with the order of the appellate authority and if Section 61 of the Act was attracted, any mistake that was apparent from the record could have been rectified by the appellate authority and not by respondent No, 1. On this question decisions of different High Courts were cited at the bar. No decision of this High Court was cited. The decisions were based on Supreme Court decisions. The scope and applicability of the doctrine of merger came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 144 (SC); AIR 1967 SC 681 and it was observed that (p. 149 of 19 STC) :--