Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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