JUDGMENT : The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order quashing Exts. P-1 to P-3 and for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps, for collecting estate duty and penalty in pursuance of Exts. P-1 to P-3.

2. One Ameen Pillai (hereinafter referred so as the deceased) died in May 1959. It is admitted that he left two widows and eight children. One of the daughters died in 1962. The petitioners are two of the sons of the deceased. The estate of the deceased was assessed to estate duty under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act (Central Act XXXIV of 1953 - hereinafter referred to as the Act). A copy of the assessment order has been produced as Ext. P-1 dated 17-10-1962. The petitioners are not parties to the said assessment. It is seen that only the two widows and five children of the deceased were parties. By proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 28-1-1963, a penalty of Rs. 1217 was imposed on the seven named assessees who were parties to Ex. P-1. The petitioners allege that on 27-9 1964, the 3rd respondent, the Village Officer, attached movables in the residence of the petitioners under a list, copy of which has been produced as Ex. P-2. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the petitioners' affidavit that the attachment was for the purpose of collection of the duty (and the penalty ?) imposed under Exs. P-1 to P-3. It is stated that the petitioners did not receive any notice either of the assessment evidenced by Ex. P-1 or of any demand for payment of duly or penalty. On these grounds, it is claimed that Exs. P-1 to P-3, are illegal and are liable to be quashed.

3. From Ex. P-1 and from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is seen that the circumstances leading to the assessment and the subsequent proceedings are as follows :

4. No statutory return of accounts as required by S. 53(3) of the Act was delivered to the Controller within 6 months of the death of the deceased by any of the accountable persons. Notice under S. 55 of the Act was issued to one of the accountable persons. (No. 1 in Ex. P-1) and was returned unserved. Thereafter notice under S. 55 of the Act and E.D. (1) Forms with a proposal dated 30-1-1962 were issued to all the seven accountable persons in Ex. P-1 fixing the value of the Estate at Rs. 3,20,590 and calling for objections and appearance on 21-2-1962. These notices were served on a few of the accountable persons and returned refused, by the rest. In response to these notices, No. 7 in Ex. P-1 appeared through an Advocate, who took time repeatedly, and who, in spite of notices of adjournment of the proceedings, failed to appear and render any assistance. There was no response from the other persons to whom the notices were issued. Notices dated 25-7-1962, were issued to till the seven persons, fixing the date of hearing for 6-8-1962 and informing that failure to appear may entail the completion of the assessment on the basis of the proposal already issued. These notices were served on three persons in Ex. P-1, refused by three, and not served on the remaining one. On 6-8-1962, the Advocate on behalf of No. 7, appeared and stated that there was a settlement executed by the deceased in 1951 of all the deceased's properties on his wife and children, and that the document was with No. 1 to Ex. P-1. Steps were taken to get the, said document, and for Ibis purpose notice dated 27-9-1962, was issued to No. 1 in Ex. P-1 which was acknowledged by him on 13-9-1962 (stated in the counter-affidavit to be an obvious mistake for 13-10-1962 as the notice itself was despatched only on 3-10-1962). As there was no response, assessment was eventually completed on 17-10-1962 fixing the value of the Estate at Rs. 3,20,590 and the duly at Rs. 24,338.50 payable on or before 17-11-1962. Demand notice is stated to have been served on three of the persons in. Ex. P-1, refused by three others, and the notice addressed to the remaining o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document