MAHARANA SHRI BHAGWAT SINGHJI OF MEWAR Vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated March 18, 1996, passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, on stay Applications Nos. 18 and 19/(JP) of 1996 arising out of Estate Duty Appeal No. 1/(JP) of 1996 and Wealth -tax Appeals Nos. 6 to 12/(JP) of 1996 for the assessment years 1985 -86 to 1990 -91 and 1992 -93 directing the petitioner to deposit 25 per cent. of the outstanding demand payable under the Estate Duty Act and the Wealth -tax Act for the years under appeal on or before April 30, 1996. The recovery of the balance outstanding demand under both the Acts for the years under appeal has been stayed till the disposal of appeals by the impugned order. The present petition came up for admission on April 18, 1996, however, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner it was ordered to be listed on April 19, 1996. In view of the fact that the Tribunal itself directed the appeals to be fixed for hearing in the second week of May, 1996, it was thought proper to dispose of the petition finally at the admission stage itself. Since the matter was proposed to be finally disposed of, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to supply a copy of the petition to Mr. G.S. Bapna, standingcounsel for the Revenue, in order to give opportunity to the Revenue to oppose the writ petition. Mr. N.M. Ranka, learned counsel for the petitioner, made a statement in court that Mr. G.S. Bapna who was earlier counsel for the Revenue has resigned. It was stated that in his place, Mr. Virendra Dangi has been appointed and as such, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to approach Mr. Virendra Dangi who too informed learned counsel for the petitioner that he had also resigned. It is unfortunate that there is no standing counsel to represent the Revenue at Jaipur Bench in cases filed against the Revenue. In view of the said fact, the court is left with no option but to proceed to decide the case on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. After hearing the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, orders were reserved and in the meantime an additional affidavit has been filed on April 24, 1996, by the petitioner by means of which, he wanted the papers annexed to the aforesaid additional affidavit to be brought on record and also the facts to be considered stated in the additional affidavit. It has been averred that after the hearing of the petition was over the petitioner received a rectification order and two letters which he has filed along with the additional affidavit. I have perused the contents of the additional affidavit and I am of the opinion that the facts contained in the affidavit and the documents annexed thereto are relevant for the decision of the case and as such, the additional affidavit is ordered to be placed on record. Before dealing with the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to narrate the relevant facts of the case, which run as under :

(2.) MAHARANA Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar, the former Ruler of the State of Mewar, died on November 3, 1984. His late Highness Maharana Bhagwat Singh, son of His late Highness Maharana Bhupal Singh, Udaipur, left the last will dated May 15, 1984, and appointed (i) Shri Arvind Singh of Mewar, son of His late Highness ; and (ii) Shri A. Subramaniam, son of Shri T.S. Appu Aiyer, as executors of the said will. The executors made a petition for probate in the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur which was registered as S.B. Testamentary Case No. 1 of 1985. The probate of the will was granted by this court on November 13, 1987, and the certificate dated February 15, 1992, was issued in favour of the executors by the Registrar of this court. The executors have undertaken to administer the same and make full and true inventory of the said property and credits and exhibit the same in the court within six months from the date of grant as also to render to the court a true account of the said property and credits. Thereafter, Rajmata Sushila Kumari and others filed appeal before the Division Bench of this court against the order of the learned singlejudge dated November 13, 1987, granting probate in respect of the will dated May 15, 1984, which was registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 24 of 1988 and the Division Bench of this court vide its judgment dated May 12, 1993, dismissed the aforesaid appeal with costs. The executor, Shri Mahendra Singh, son of His late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji, preferred a special leave petition being S. L. P. (Civil) No. 10313 of 1993 before the apex court against the order dated May 12, 1993, passed by the Division Bench of this court rejecting the appeal filed by Rajmata Sushila Kumari and others. Consequently, the said special leave petition was also dismissed by the apex court on May 9, 1994. It appears that the District Judge, Udaipur, passed an order dated December 2, 1995, [?], on the civil suits filed by Shri Mahendra Singh and others against which miscellaneous appeals were filed by Shri Mahendra Singh and others in this court. The said appeals were disposed of by this court on June 11, 1993, and directions issued by this court in the aforesaid appeals were as under :

(3.) THE aforesaid submission, in my view, has sufficient force and deserves to be accepted. In view of the facts stated above, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit 25 per cent. of the impugned tax is arbitrary, erroneous, based on conjectures and surmises and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.