Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High 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

Supreme Court Sets Aside Settlement Commission's Order, Remands Matter for Fresh Decision

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment JAGDISH TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.  , the Supreme Court of India has set aside the order passed by the Settlement Commission in the case of Jagdish Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. The court remanded the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for compliance with due procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The case stemmed from a search and seizure operation conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Notices under Section 153A were issued to the appellants for the assessment years 1998-1999 to 2004-2005. Subsequently, the appellants filed their income tax returns under Section 153A and also submitted an application for settlement before the Settlement Commission under Section 245C(1) of the Act.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, had directed the Settlement Commission to dispose of the application by a specific date. However, in its order dated March 31, 2008, the Settlement Commission observed that it was not practicable to examine the records and investigate the case properly. Despite this observation, the Settlement Commission passed an order to comply with the High Court's directions.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the Settlement Commission's order was a nullity and not in accordance with the law. It noted that the Settlement Commission itself had acknowledged the impracticability of examining the records and providing adequate opportunity to both the applicant and the Department, as required under Section 245D(4) of the Act.

The Court further highlighted that the High Court should have remitted the matter back to the Settlement Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with the law and on its merits. However, since the Settlement Commission has been wound up, the matters pending before it are being adjudicated and decided by the interim Board constituted under Section 245AA of the Act. Thus, the Court remanded the matter to the interim Board with a request for an expeditious decision within six months.

Date: April 28, 2023

JAGDISH TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Latest Legal News