{"id":203726,"date":"1989-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989"},"modified":"2018-01-28T15:21:09","modified_gmt":"2018-01-28T09:51:09","slug":"controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989","title":{"rendered":"Controller Of Estate Duty, … vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person … on 2 May, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Controller Of Estate Duty, … vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person … on 2 May, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1710, \t\t 1989 SCR (2) 987<\/div>\n
Author: R Pathak<\/div>\n
Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, GUJARAT I,AHMEDABAD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.A. MERCHANT ACCOUNTABLE PERSON OFLATE SHRI A.G MERCHANT, M\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/05\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 1710\t\t  1989 SCR  (2) 987\n 1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 499 JT 1989 (3)\t177\n 1989 SCALE  (1)1479\n\n\nACT:\n    Estate  Duty Act, 1953: Sections  56-65--Valuations\t for\nestate duty--Rectification of mistake--Reopening of  assess-\nment made under section 59--Permissibility of--Effect of the\nEstate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t respondents who were the accountable persons  filed\nreturns\t under the Estate Duty Act. 1953, and an  assessment\nwas made by the Deputy Controller of Estate  Duty--Appellant\non 26th February. 1960.\n    The\t Estate\t Duty  (Amendment) Act,\t 1958  repealed\t the\noriginal sections 56 to 65. Section 59 which substituted for\nthe original section 62 made provision for re-assessment. It\ncame into force with effect from 1st July, 1960.\n    On\t21st February, 1962, a notice under the new  section\n59  of the Act was issued to the respondents for  re-opening\nthe assessment on the ground that some property had  escaped\nthe  levy of estate duty. The respondents raised  objections\nbut  the same were rejected by the Assistant Controller\t who\nreopened the assessment.\n    Against the aforesaid order three different appeals were\nfiled  by the respondents before the  Appellate\t Controller,\nwho  allowed the appeals. set aside the\t reassessment  order\nholding that section 59 under which action had been taken by\nthe Assistant Controller was not retrospective in operation.\n    On\tappeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the\tview\nof  the Appellate Controller relying on the decision of\t the\nBombay\tHigh Court in A.N. Mafatlal v. Deputy Controller  of\nEstate Duty, [1968] 67 I.T.R. 449.\nThereafter. at the instance of the Revenue 3 references were\nmade\n988\nto  the High Court raising the indentical  question  whether\nsection\t 59 was retrospective in operation and reopening  of\nthe  assessment\t under section 59 was bad.  The\t High  Court\nanalysed  the provisions of the new section 59 and  the\t old\nsection\t 62. came to the conclusion that the power of  reas-\nsessment conferred by the new section 59 Is quite  different\nfrom the power conferred by the old section 62. and answered\nthe question in each case in favour of the assessee.\n    The\t Revenue  appealed to this Court. On  the  question:\nwhether the newly enacted section 59 of the Estate Duty\t Act\nis retrospective in operation so as to affect the assessment\nalready completed on the accountable persons.\nDismissing the appeals, the Court\n    HELD: 1. Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act is not retro-\nspective in operation and reopening of the assessment  under\nsection\t 59  of the Act in the instant case is bad  in\tlaw.\n[993D]\n    2.\tThe  Estate Duty (Amendment) Act.  1958\t effected  a\nsubstantial change in the parent Act. Sections 56 to 65 were\nsubstituted in place of the existing sections 56 to 65.\t and\nthe originally enacted section 62 was repealed. The original\nsection\t 62  provided essentially for the  rectification  of\nmistakes apparent from the record or in the valuation of any\nproperty  or  by  reason of the omission  of  any  property.\n[992D-E]\n    3.\tThe  newly enacted section 59  deals  with  properly\nescaping  assessment. The provision is analogous to  section\n34 of the Indian Income Tax Act. 1922 and section 147 of the\nIncome Tax Act. 1961. The new Section 59 endeavours to cover\na substantially different area from that treated by the\t old\nsection\t 62.  The only area which seems common\tto  the\t two\nprovisions  relates to the \"omission of any  property\",\t but\nthe  incidents\tof the power under section 62  relate  to  a\nsituation  materially  different from the incidents  of\t the\npower contemplated under section 59. [992E-F]\n    4.\tThere are no specific words which confer  retrospec-\ntive effect to section 59 as it stands. To spell out  retro-\nspectivity  in\tsection 59 there must be  something  in\t the\nintent to section 59 from which retrospective operation\t can\nbe necessarily inferred. There is no such intent. [992G-H]\n5.  The new section 59 is altogether different from the\t old\nsection\n989\n62 and there is nothing new in the new section 59 from which\nan intent to give retrospective effect to it can be conclud-\ned. [992H; 993A]\n    6.\tThere is a well-settled principle against  interfer-\nence with vested right by subsequent legislation unless\t the\nlegislation  has  been made retrospective  expressly  or  by\nnecessary  implication.\t If an assessment has  already\tbeen\nmade and completed, the assessee cannot be subjected to\t re-\nassessment  unless  the\t statute permits that  to  be  done.\n[993B-C]\n    7.\tThe  new section 59 came into force from  1st  July,\n1960.  Much earlier, on 26th February, 1960. the  assessment\non  the accountable persons in the instant case had  already\nbeen  completed. So. there can be no question  of  reopening\nthe assessment. [993B]\n    Controller\tof Estate Duty, West Bengal v. Smt. IIa\t Das\nand Others,<\/a> [198l] 132 I.T.R. 720 relied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 2-4  of
\n1975.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 8th 9th November\t1973
\nof the Gujarat High Court in Estate Duty Reference Nos. 2, 3
\nand 4 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
Dr.  V. Gauri Shankar and Miss A. Subhashini for the  Appel-
\nlant.\n<\/p>\n
    V.S.  Desai,  Mrs.\tA.K. Verma and Joel  Peres  for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    PATHAK,  CJ.  The facts in these appeals  lie  within  a
\nnarrow compass. One Abdulhussein Gulamhussein Merchant\tdied
\non  8 February, 1959. The accountable persons filed  returns
\nunder  the  provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953  and  an
\nassessment was made by the Deputy Controller of Estate\tDuty
\non 26 February, 1960. The Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958,
\nrepealed  the original sections 56 to 65. Section 59,  which
\nsubstituted  for  the  original s. 62,\tmade  provision\t for
\nreassessment.  It  came into force with effect from  1\tJuly
\n1960.  On 21 February, 1962 a notice under the new s. 59  of
\nthe  Act was issued to the accountable person concerned\t for
\nreopening  the assessment on the ground that  some  property
\nhad escaped the levy of estate
\n990<\/span>
\nduty.  The  accountable\t persons raised\t objections  to\t the
\nreopening  of  the  assessment under s.\t 59.  The  Assistant
\nController  rejected  the  contentions\tof  the\t accountable
\npersons\t and reopened the assessment. Against the  order  of
\nreassessment  the accountable persons filed three  different
\nappeals\t before\t the  Appellate\t Controller.  The  Appellate
\nController  allowed the appeals and set aside the  reassess-
\nment  orders holding that s. 59 under which action had\tbeen
\ntaken  by the Assistant Controller was not retrospective  in
\noperation. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the
\nview of the Appellate Controller relying on the decision  of
\nthe Bombay High CoUrt in A.N. Mafatlal v. Deputy  Controller
\nof  Estate  Duty,  [1968] 67 I.T.R.  449.  Thereafter  three
\nreferences  were made to the High Court at the\tinstance  of
\nthe Revenue raising the identical question:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether\tSection 59 of the Estate  Duty\tAct,
\n\t      1953 is retrospective in operation and if\t so,
\n\t      in  the facts and circumstances of  the  case,
\n\t      the reopening of the assessment under s. 59 of
\n\t      the said Act was bad in law?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 62 as originally enacted read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Rectification of mistakes relating to  valua-
\n\t      tion  for\t estate\t duty:, (1)  If,  after\t the
\n\t      determination  of the estate duty\t payable  in
\n\t      respect  of  any\testate, it  appears  to\t the
\n\t      Controller  that\tby  reason  of\tany  mistake
\n\t      apparent from the record or of any mistake  in
\n\t      the  valuation  of any property  in  any\tcase
\n\t      other  than a case in which the valuation\t has
\n\t      been the subject matter of an appeal under the
\n\t      Act  or of the omission of any  property,\t the
\n\t      estate  duty paid thereon is either in  excess
\n\t      of  or less than the actual duty\tpayable,  he
\n\t      may, either on his own motion or on the appli-
\n\t      cation  of  the person accountable  and  after
\n\t      obtaining the previous approval of the  Board,
\n\t      at  any time within three years from the\tdate
\n\t      on   which   the\t estate\t  duty\t was   first
\n\t      determined–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (a) refund the excess duty paid, or,  as
\n\t      the ease may be,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (b)\t  determined  the  additional\tduty
\n\t      payable on the property;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\tProvided   that\t where\tthe   person
\n\t      accountable  had fraudulently  under-estimated
\n\t      the  value  of  any property  or\tomitted\t any
\n\t      property, the period will be six years:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      991<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\tProvided further that no order shall
\n\t      be  made\tunder this  sub-section\t unless\t the
\n\t      person accountable has been given an  opportu-
\n\t      nity of being heard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall
\n\t      render  any.  person  accountable\t to  whom  a
\n\t      certificate that the estate duty has been paid
\n\t      is  granted liable for any additional duty  in
\n\t      excess of the assets of the deceased which are
\n\t      still  in\t his possession, unless\t the  person
\n\t      accountable  had\tfraudulently  attempted\t  to
\n\t      evade any part of the estate duty in the first
\n\t      instance.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The provisions of section 59 introduced by the Amendment
\nAct of 1958 are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “59.  Properly  escaping assessment.’  If\t the
\n\t      Controller, …..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (a)  has\treason to  believe  that  by
\n\t      reason of the omission or failure on the\tpart
\n\t      of the person accountable to submit an account
\n\t      of the estate of the deceased under Section 53
\n\t      or  Section 56 or to disclose fully and  truly
\n\t      all  material facts necessary for\t assessment,
\n\t      any  property  chargeable to estate  duty\t has
\n\t      escaped assessment by reason of undervaluation
\n\t      of the property included in the account or  of
\n\t      omission to include therein any property which
\n\t      ought  to have been included or of  assessment
\n\t      at too low a rate or otherwise, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (b) has, in consequence of any  infor-
\n\t      mation  in his possession, reason\t to  believe
\n\t      notwithstanding  that there has not been\tsuch
\n\t      omission\tor  failure  as is  referred  to  in
\n\t      clause  (a)  that any property  chargeable  to
\n\t      estate duty has escaped assessment, whether by
\n\t      reason  of  under-valuation  of  the  property
\n\t      included\tin  the account or  of\tomission  to
\n\t      include  therein any property which  ought  to
\n\t      have  been included, or of assessment  at\t too
\n\t      low  a rate or otherwise, he may at any  time,
\n\t      subject  to  the provisions  of  section\t73A,
\n\t      require  the person accountable to  submit  an
\n\t      account  as required under section 53 and\t may
\n\t      proceed to
\n\t      992<\/span>
\n\t      assess  or  reassess such property as  if\t the
\n\t      provisions of Section 58 applied thereto.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t High Court considered the question of law  referred
\nto it at great length and after a detailed judgment answered
\nthe question in each case in favour of the assessee.
\nThe Revenue now appeals.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t question is whether the newly enacted s. 59 of\t the
\nEstate\tDuty  Act  is retrospective in operation  so  as  to
\naffect\tthe assessment already completed on the\t accountable
\npersons.  It  is urged that the new s. 59  is  substantially
\nsimilar\t in content as the old s. 62 and therefore  the\t new
\nprovision must be regarded as retrospective. The  contention
\nmay be examined.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958 effected  a\tsub-
\nstantial change in the parent Act. Ss. 56 to 65 were substi-
\ntuted in place of the existing ss. 56 to 65, and the  origi-
\nnally enacted s. 62 was repealed. The original s. 62 provid-
\ned  essentially for the rectification of  mistakes  apparent
\nfrom  the record or in the valuation of any property  or  by
\nreason of the omission of any property. The newly enacted s.
\n59 deals with property escaping assessment. The provision is
\nanalogous to s. 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and s.
\n147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It seems to us that the new
\ns.  59\tendeavours to cover a substantially  different\tarea
\nfrom that treated by the old section 62. The only area which
\nseems common to the two provisions relates to the  “omission
\nof  any property”, but it seems to us that the incidents  of
\nthe  power  under  s. 62 relate to  a  situation  materially
\ndifferent from the incidents of the power contemplated under
\ns. 59. The High Court has closely analysed the provisions of
\nthe  two  sections and has come to the conclusion  that\t the
\npower  of reassessment conferred by the new s. 59  is  quite
\ndifferent from the power conferred by the old s. 62. We\t are
\nin  agreement with the High Court. The contention on  behalf
\nof the Revenue based on the identity alleged between the new
\ns.  59 and the old s. 62, and that, therefore, the new\tsec-
\ntion should be regarded as retrospective cannot be accepted.
\n    As .it stands, there are no specific words either  which
\nconfer\tretrospective effect to s. 59. To spell\t out  retro-
\nspectivity  in s. 59, then, there must be something  in\t the
\nintent\tto s. 59 from which retrospective operation  can  be
\nnecessarily inferred. We are unable to see such intent.\t The
\nnew s. 59 is altogether different from the old s. 62 and
\n993<\/span>
\nthere  is nothing in the new s. 59 from which an  intent  to
\ngive retrospective effect to it can be concluded.
\n    The\t new s. 59 came into force from 1 July,\t 1960.\tMuch
\nearlier, on 26 February, 1960 the assessment on the account-
\nable  person  had already been completed. There\t is  a\twell
\nsettled principle against interference with vested rights by
\nsubsequent legislation unless the legislation has been\tmade
\nretrospective  expressly or by necessary implication. If  an
\nassessment has already been made and completed, the assessee
\ncannot\tbe  subjected to re-assessment\tunless\tthe  statute
\npermits that to be done. Reference may be made to Controller
\nof  Estate  Duty, West Bengal v. Smt. IIa  Das\tand  others<\/a>,
\n[1981] 132 I.T.R. 720 where an attempt to reopen the  Estate
\nDuty assessment consequent upon the insertion of the new  s.
\n59 of the Estate Duty Act was held infructuous.
\n    We hold that s. 59 of the Estate Duty Act is not  retro-
\nspective in operation and that the reopening of the  assess-
\nment under s. 59. of the Act is bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t   Appeals dismissed.\n994<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Controller Of Estate Duty, … vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person … on 2 May, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1710, 1989 SCR (2) 987 Author: R Pathak Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj) PETITIONER: CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, GUJARAT I,AHMEDABAD. Vs. RESPONDENT: M.A. MERCHANT ACCOUNTABLE PERSON OFLATE SHRI A.G MERCHANT, M DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nController Of Estate Duty, ... vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person ... on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Controller Of Estate Duty, ... vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person ... on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-28T09:51:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Controller Of Estate Duty, … vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person … on 2 May, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T09:51:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989\"},\"wordCount\":1454,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989\",\"name\":\"Controller Of Estate Duty, ... vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person ... on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T09:51:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Controller Of Estate Duty, … vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person … on 2 May, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Controller Of Estate Duty, ... vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person ... on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Controller Of Estate Duty, ... vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person ... on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-28T09:51:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Controller Of Estate Duty, … vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person … on 2 May, 1989","datePublished":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T09:51:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989"},"wordCount":1454,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989","name":"Controller Of Estate Duty, ... vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person ... on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T09:51:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-m-a-merchant-accountable-person-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Controller Of Estate Duty, … vs M.A. Merchant Accountable Person … on 2 May, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203726","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203726"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203726\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}