JUDGMENT

AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J.:— These two appeals by certificate granted by the Patna High Court are against the common Judgment and order of the High Court passed on 12-8-1969. The common judgment was passed by the High Court in a reference under S. 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act (being tax Case No. 73 of 1966) and also in the writ petition filed by the assessee in the High Court (bearing No. C.W.J.C. No. 104 of 1967). The question which was referred to the High Court in the reference under S. 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 comprised in the estate known as Madra Math properties have rightly been assessed to Estate Duty under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953."

In the writ petition, the validity of imposition of penalty was challenged.

2. The principal question which falls for consideration in these two appeals is whether on the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri, any estate duty could be levied on the properties comprised in the estate known as Madra Math properties.

3. On the determination of this question, naturally hangs the fate of the writ petition.

4. As both the matters were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment, and these two appeals have been preferred with certificate granted by the High Court against the common judgment, this judgment will dispose of both the appeals.

5. On the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri of Madra Math on 4th June, 1954, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Patna finding that no accountable person had filed any return, prepared a draft computation of the estate duty leviable in respect of what he considered to be the estate of the deceased Mahant and he called upon the accountable person to file objections, if any. 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. Since the accountable person who happened to be Mahant, elected by the disciples of the deceased Mahant, did not 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 not a mere trustee of the properties of the Math and the deceased Mahant was the sole proprietor of the properties. Against the order of the Assistant Controller, the accountable person Mahant Omesh Narain Puri preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue. In the appeal it was contended on behalf of the accountable person that the deceased Mahant Surinder Nath Puri was merely a trustee of the properties of the Math and no estate duty could, therefore, be levied on the properties of the Math of which the deceased Mahant was only incharge as trustee. The Board came to the conclusion that the status of the deceased Mahant had already been declared by the District Judge of Gaya in Title Suit No. 1 of 1932. The Board further held that in view of the said decision of the District Judge in Title Suit No. 1 of 1932 and in view of the further fact that the deceased Mahant had disposed of some of the properties during his lifetime, the estate duty was leviable on the properties and the Board dismissed the appeal. On the question of computation of Estate Duty, the Board held that there were no justifiable grounds for interfering with the order of the Assistant Controller. 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. The Board, however, referred the question which we have earlier set out, to the High Court.

6. The High Court on a consideration of the various arguments advanced and the materials on record held that the properties comprised in the estate