In the writ petition, the validity of imposition of penalty was challenged.
Against the order of the Assistant Controller, the accountable person Mahant Omesh Narain Puri preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue.
The reply given by the accountable person was that Mahant Surinder Nath Puri was a mere trustee in respect of the estate which belonged to the Math and in the reply the valuation was also disputed.
On the determination of this question, naturally hangs the fate of the writ petition.
On the question of companyputation of Estate Duty, the Board held that there were numberjustifiable grounds for interfering with the order of the Assistant Controller.
The companyrectness of the said decision of the High Court in the Tax Reference has been challenged by the Controller of Estate Duty.
73 of 1966 and also in the writ petition filed by the assessee in the High Court bearing No.
The companymon judgment was passed by the High Court in a reference under Section 64 1 of the Estate Duty Act being tax Case No.
Hence, the other appeal has bean filed and the fate of this appeal from the order in the writ petition will naturally depend on the result of the appeal from the judgment in the Tax Appeal.
These two appeals by certificate granted by the Patna High Court are against the companymon judgment and order of the High Court passed on 12.8.1969.
On the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri of Madra Math on 4th June, 1954, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty Patna finding that numberaccountable person had filed any return, prepared a draft companyputation of the estate duty leviable in respect of what he companysidered to be the estate of the deceased Mahant and he called upon the accountable person to file objections, if any.
Since the accountable person who happened to be Mahant, elected by the disciple of the deceased Mahant, did number produce any material in respect of his claim after opportunities given to him, the Assistant Controller finalised the assessment on the 19th June, 1958 holding that the deceased Mahant was number a mere trustee of the properties of the Math and the deceased Mahant Was the sole proprietor of the properties.
The Board came to the companyclusion that the status of the deceased Mahant had already been declared by the District Judge of Gaya in Title Suit No.
Thereupon the accountable person filed a petition before the Board for referring a number of questions of law for the opinion of the High Court.
None of the questions suggested by the accountable person were accepted by the Board as legitimate.
1 of 1932.
In the appeal it was companytended on behalf of the accountable person that the deceased Mahant Surinder Nath Puri was merely a trustee of the properties of the Math and numberestate duty companyld, therefore, be levied on the properties of the Math of which the deceased Mahant was only incharge as trustee.
In view of the decision of the High Court in the Tax Reference, the writ petition was also allowed by the High Court and the order imposing the penalty was also quashed.
The principal question which falls for companysideration in these two appeals is whether on the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri, any estate duty companyld be levied on the properties companyprised in the estate known as Madra Math properties.
1 of 1932 and in view of the further fact that the deceased Mahant had disposed of some of the properties during his life time, the estate duty was, leviable on the properties and the Board dismissed the appeal.
The High Court on a companysideration of the various arguments advanced and the materials on record held that the properties companyprised in the estate known as Madra Math were trust properties and numberestate duty companyld be levied on the said properties on the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri.
The Board further held that in view of the said decision of the District Judge in Title Suit No.
The Board, however, referred the question which we have earlier set out, to the High Court.
As both the matters were disposed of by the High Court by a companymon judgment, and these two appeals have been preferred with certificate granted by the High Court against the companymon judgment, this judgment will dispose of both the appeals.
The question which was referred to the High Court in the reference under Section 64 1 of the Estate Duty Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the properties companyprised in the estate known as Madra Math properties have rightly been assessed to Estate Duty under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
C.W.J.C. No.
104 of 1967 .
