Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

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