TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner : Dr. A. Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Rameshkumar For the Respondents : Mr. T. Pramodkumar Chopda ORDER Heard Dr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior counsel, for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda, learned counsel for the respondents and with their consent, the the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for quashing the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 27.08.2002 suo-motu revising its final order dated 19.06.1998 and the second suo-motu order dated 11.03.2003. The impugned orders are challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and there is no authority for the Commission to rectify such mista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not provide power of review with the authority and if it is so, it has to be termed as wholly without jurisdiction. Sub section (1) of Section 245(F) which states that Settlement Commission shall have all powers which are vested in Income Tax Authority under the Act cannot be read in isolation but it should be read in tandem with Section 245(I) and if it is done, then it is to be held that there is no power of review conferred on the Commission to reopen the proceedings. This position held the field till an amendment was inserted under Section 6(b) of Section 245D by Finance Act 2011 with effect from 1.6.2011. Even the said provision is not a power of review. But the phraseology used by the legislation is rectification and such rect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the Commission, referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Bulk Carriers and Damani Bros, with respect to the terminal date for charging of interest under Section 234B. Admittedly, these decisions were rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court much after the final order was passed by the Commission under Section 245D(4). 10. Rudimentary legal principle is that subsequent development of law cannot be a ground to exercise review jurisdiction and that cannot be taken into consideration as an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, on that ground also, the Department should be non suited. Hence for all the above, order of the Settlement Commission is held to be unsustaina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
