Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

"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