Gujarat High Court
EDR/6/1984 of GEETABEN BHARATKUMAR SHAH Vs ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATEDUTY on 24 December 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD ESTATE DUTY REFERENCE No 6 of 1984 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ESTATE DUTY REFERENCE No 6 of 1984
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
============================================================
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
-------------------------------------------------------------- GEETABEN BHARATKUMAR SHAH
Versus
ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATEDUTY
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR KC PATEL for Petitioner
MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
Date of decision: 24/12/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT
1. Learned counsel for the accountable person on whose instance this Estate Duty Reference has been made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench C states that he does not press for the answer of the question referred in the case.
2. In view of the aforesaid, we decline to answer the question referred to us by the Tribunal and return the reference unanswered.
There shall be no order as to costs.
�����(Rajesh Balia, J)
�����(A.R. Dave, J)