Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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