Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

"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.       

Latest Legal News