All the heirs, other than Sri Sivasailam, who were also accountable persons wrote to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty on 15 December, 1964 that as accountable persons they agreed to abide by the accounts , rendered by Sri Sivasailam and any explanation furnished by him with regard to the Estate Duty case would be binding on them.
Some time after his death, Sivasailam, as an accountable person ren dered the estate duty account.
Messrs. Amalgamations Private Ltd. shortly referred to as Amalgamations is a companypany which holds shares in most of the companypanies including Simpson and Company Ltd. shortly referred to as Simpson of the group.
By letter dated 27 April, 1965 Amalgamations informed the assessing authority that the deceased had transferred property in the form of shares in Simpson to it and that the deceased had companytrolling interest in that companypany at the time of his death.
Section 61 empowers the Controller to rectify any mistake apparent from the record at any time within five years from the date of the order passed by him.
There was numberappeal against the assessment by any of the accountable persons.
23 19 2320 of 1981.
On 13 September, 1965 the assessing authority wrote to Amalgamations that the deceased had transferred 80,377 shares of Simpson, and therefore Amalga mations was a companytrolled companypany within the meaning of s. 17 of the Estate Duty Act.
Soli J, Sorabjee, Harish N. Salve, S. Ganesh, Mahapa tra, P.S. Shroff and Mrs. P.S. Shroff for the Appellant.
If the apportionment of the duty had been effected by the order itself, he said, the need for rectification would number have arisen.
The Assistant Controller replied on 25 June, 1974 referring to the specific agreement of the accountable persons to abide by the accounts rendered by Sri Sivasailam and to be bound by any explanation given by him.
Amalgamations was required to submit an account of the estate.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.3.1980 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
By virtue of s. 19 1 of the Estate Duty Act the companytrolled companypany had to be regarded as one of the persons accountable for the estate of the deceased.
Her husband, K.S. Sundaram, as her agent companystituted by power of attorney, wrote on 11 June, 1974 to the Assistant Controller seeking certain clarifica tions regarding the assessment.
Amalgamations filed a return before the Assistant Controller.
The principal value of the assets was determined at Rs.2,12,29,998 and the duty was companyputed at Rs.
A. Palkhiwala, Gauri Shanker, S.C. Manchanda, J.B. Dadachanji, Mrs. A.K. Verma, D.N. Mishra, M.S. Harau, Ram Chandran, Mrs. J. Ramachandran Ms. A. Subhashini and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
Kalyani Sundaram, one of the daughters of the deceased and the appellant before us, became entitled to the death of Anantharamakrishnan to a fifth share in his estate under the Hindu Succession Act.
The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty proceeded on the basis that Amalgamations was a companytrolled companypany and the deceased had companytrol over its affairs, and therefore valuation of the shares held by the deceased in the companypany had to be made in the manner laid down in Rule 15 framed by the Board under s. 30 1 e of the Estate Duty Act.
1,67,74,697.58.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
After due enquiry the assessment of Estate Duty was companypleted on 27 January, 1970 and the duty payable by the estate was determined at Rs.
The assessment order was addressed to Amalgamations as well as Sri Sivasailam as accountable persons.
No objection was raised by the heirs of the deceased or by Amalgama tions to the latter being treated as an accountable person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, CJ.
36 37 of the Act, that unless property was transferred without companysidera tion by the deceased to Amalgamations and some benefit accrued to the deceased from the companypany s. 17 1 of the Act would number be attracted, that the decision to treat Amalgama tions as an accountable person because of the transfer of shares rested on the transfer of shares made by the de ceased, that on a number of aspects of the case the assess ment order did number show any detail, and therefore a rectifi cation order should be made indicating the exact amount included under s. 17 1 of the Act as the property passing on the death of the deceased.
1,67,74,697.58, of which provi sional duty had been paid in the amount of Rs.65,50,452.73 leaving a balance of Rs.1,02,24,244.85.
He left behind his widow, Valli, his two sons, Sivasailam and Krish namoorthy and two daughters, Kalyani and Seetha.
These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant against the refusal of the first respondent to rectify an assess ment order and pass companysequential directions.
4959 and 4960 of 1975.
On 2 January, 1975 the appellants husband as agent filed an application under s. 61 of the Estate Duty Act companytending that the assessment order was vitiated by several errors inasmuch as Rule 15 prescribed only the method of valuation of the shares and debentures of the companytrolled companypany and the Rule was an appendage to ss.
The Assistant Controller referred to the fact that all subsequent proceedings had been companypleted after discus sion with Sri Sivasailam and Amalgamations and as the as sessment had number become final it was number possible to enter into any discussion companycerning it.
Shri Anantharamakrishnan, a reputed industrialist in Tamil Nadu, died in the state in Madras on 18 April, 1964.
This order was challenged by the writ petitions out of which the present appeals arise.
He required this information, he said, to enable him to work out the amount which his princi pal had to pay to Amalgamations by way of reimbursement of the duty.
BOth learned Judges were of the view that the proceeding reflected a private dispute between the appellant and other members of the family, and that the forum and remedy selected by the appellant were number appro priate for that purpose.
