vil Appeal No 1491 NN of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 305
1986 of the Delhi High Court in W No 578 of 1981
A Subba Rao P Parmeshwaran and Mrs Sushma Suri for the Appellants
HN Salve PK Ram and DN Misra for the Respondent
872 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This is an appeal by special leave and is connected with Civil Appeal No 859
This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 30th May 1986
It appears that in October 1975 Trade Notices were issued on the basis of the directive of the Ministry of Finance to the effect that the owners of the brand name are to be treated as the manufacturers of the goods
In April 1977 price list submitted by the respondent declaring the assessable value on the basis of the price at which the assessee respondent sold the goods
Thereafter on 16th April 1977 there was a letter written by respondent giving the list of the customers of the respondent and clarifying the terms and conditions on which the assessee sold the goods
On August 22 1977 the appellants wrote a letter to the assessee respondent seeking certain information intera lia to the effect whether the assessee and its buyers were related persons
A reply was given on 10th September 1977 by the assessee to the aforesaid letter
First notice was issued asking the assessee to show cause as to why the assessable value be not determined at the price the buyers of the assessee sold the goods instead of the price at which the assessee sold the goods to its buyers
There was a reply and the second show cause notice was issued on 28th January 1981
These show cause notices were challenged and the High Court quashed the said notices
Aggrieved thereby this appeal has been filed
The respondent is a registered company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling filters
Some of the goods are sold by the respondent to its customers under the respective brand names
The respondent filed a price list at which price the goods were sold to the customers
In view of the principles indicated in the judgment in Civil Appeal No 859 and the facts adduced before the High Court the High Court s judgment cannot be interfered
The appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed
TNA Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondents who were the accountable persons filed returns under the  and an assessment was made by the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty Appellant on 26th February
The Estate Duty Amendment Act 1958 repealed the original sections 56 to 65
Section 59 which substituted for the original section 62 made provision for re assessment
It came into force with effect from 1st July 1960
On 21st February 1962 a notice under the new section 59 of the Act was issued to the respondents for re opening the assessment on the ground that some property had escaped the levy of estate duty
The respondents raised objections but the same were rejected by the Assistant Controller who reopened the assessment
Against the aforesaid order three different appeals were filed by the respondents before the Appellate Controller who allowed the appeals
set aside the reassessment order holding that section 59 under which action had been taken by the Assistant Controller was not retrospective in operation
On appeal by the Revenue the Tribunal upheld the view of the Appellate Controller relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in AN Mafatlal vs Deputy Controller of Estate Duty Thereafter
at the instance of the Revenue 3 references were made 988 to the High Court raising the indentical question whether section 59 was retrospective in operation and reopening of the assessment under section 59 was bad
The High Court analysed the provisions of the new section 59 and the old section 62
came to the conclusion that the power of reas sessment conferred by the new section 59 Is quite different from the power conferred by the old section 62
and answered the question in each case in favour of the assessee
The Revenue appealed to this Court
On the question whether the newly enacted section 59 of the is retrospective in operation so as to affect the assessment already completed on the accountable persons
Dismissing the appeals the Court HELD 1
Section 59 of the is not retro spective in operation and reopening of the assessment under section 59 of the Act in the instant case is bad in law
993D 2
The Estate Duty Amendment Act
1958 effected a substantial change in the parent Act
Sections 56 to 65 were substituted in place of the existing sections 56 to 65
and the originally enacted section 62 was repealed
The original section 62 provided essentially for the rectification of mistakes apparent from the record or in the valuation of any property or by reason of the omission of any property
992D E 3
The newly enacted section 59 deals with properly escaping assessment
The provision is analogous to section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act
1922 and section 147 of the Income Tax Act
The new Section 59 endeavours to cover a substantially different area from that treated by the old section 62
The only area which seems common to the two provisions relates to the omission of any property but the incidents of the power under section 62 relate to a situation materially different from the incidents of the power contemplated under section 59
992E F 4
There are no specific words which confer retrospec tive effect to section 59 as it stands
To spell out retro spectivity in section 59 there must be something in the intent to section 59 from which retrospective operation can be necessarily inferred
There is no such intent
992G H 5
The new section 59 is altogether different from the old section 989 62 and there is nothing new in the new section 59 from which an intent to give retrospective effect to it can be conclud ed
992H 993A 6
There is a well settled principle against interfer ence with vested right by subsequent legislation unless the legislation has been made retrospective expressly or by necessary implication
If an assessment has already been made and completed the assessee cannot be subjected to re assessment unless the statute permits that to be done
993B C 7
The new section 59 came into force from 1st July 1960
Much earlier on 26th February 1960
the assessment on the accountable persons in the instant case had already been completed
there can be no question of reopening the assessment
993B Controller of Estate Duty West Bengal vs Smt
IIa Das and Others 198l relied on