SMT. COMILLA MOHAN vs ASSTT. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY and Another

JUDGMENT : Satish Chandra, C.J. - Colonel V. R. Mohan died on 28-1-73 leaving the petitioner as his widow. He also left behind two sons. The petitioner filed a return under the Estate Duty Act on 29-11-73. The Assistant Controller or Estate Duty, Lucknow, passed an a assessment order on 20-4-74 wherein he included the shares of lineal descendants of the deceased in the assessable estate for rate purposes. The value of such shares determined was Rs. 9,09,038,00/-. This was done in view of sec. 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act.

The petitioner challenged the validity of sec. 34(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that it is violative of the constitutional guarantee under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. For the petitioner reliance was placed upon V. D. Annal v. Assistant Controller Estate Duty. In that case Madras High Court held that section 34(1)(c) of the Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution. On the other had, a decision of our Court in Badri Vishal Tandon v. Assistant Controller, Estate Duty took a contrary view that the aforesaid provision did not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. The view taken by this court finds support from the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. Komanduri Seshamam v. Appellate Controller, Estate Duty and N. Krishna Prasad v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty.

In view of this difference of opinion and in view of Article 131-A(2) of the Constitution, which was introduced by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, this court referred the question "whether s. 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution for decision to the Supreme Court. By an order dated May, 1, 1978, the Supreme Court has referred the case back to this Court because in the meanwhile Article 131-A(2) has been repealed by the constitution Forty third Amendment) Act.

In respect of the attack under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, we agree with the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Ram v. Assistant Controller of E.D. that s. 34(1)(c) does not make an inroad into the property of the lineal descendants by aggregating their share with the shares of the deceased and subjecting the share of the deceased to a rate of duty applicable to the whole aggregated income. The provision hence does not violate Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Gulati stressed that s. 34(1)(c) went beyond s. 5, it was violative of Art. 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

We do not agree with the learned counsel. In our opinion, the view expressed by this court is binding on us.

In view of the decision of this court, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but under the circumstances without any orders as to costs.