"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

"Frequent Interference with Settlement Commission's Orders Must Be Avoided, Says Supreme Court"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of avoiding frequent interference with the orders of the Settlement Commission to maintain confidence among bonafide assessees and prevent unnecessary litigation. The judgment came in the case of an appellant who sought settlement of a tax dispute before the Settlement Commission.

The appellant had approached the Settlement Commission, offering additional income for taxation, apart from what was disclosed in the return of income. The Settlement Commission, after considering the appellant's disclosures and cooperation, granted immunity from prosecution and penalty. However, the High Court later interfered with this decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted the limited grounds on which an order or proceeding of the Settlement Commission can be judicially reviewed. It stated, "Unsettling reasoned orders of the Settlement Commission may erode the confidence of the bonafide assessees, thereby leading to multiplicity of litigation where settlement is possible. This larger picture has to be borne in mind."

The Court also noted that the Settlement Commission's discretion to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty should be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case. It cautioned against treating the provisions of settlement as a shelter for tax dodgers, emphasizing that bona fide assessees should not be discouraged from seeking settlement when appropriate.

The Supreme Court's judgment ultimately set aside the High Court's decision and restored the order of the Settlement Commission. The Court concluded, "Frequent interference with the Settlement Commission's orders should be avoided. The High Court should not scrutinize an order or proceeding of a Settlement Commission as an appellate court."

This judgment reinforces the significance of maintaining trust in the settlement process and encourages the Settlement Commission to exercise its discretion judiciously while considering applications for settlement.

 

Date of Decision: 25 September 2023

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED   vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX   BANGALORE AND ANR.       

Similar News