9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961(for short 'the Act') as substituted/inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 insofar as providing for the automatic abatement of settlement application, if no final order is passed by the Settlement Commission before 31.03.2008. Said writ petitions were disposed off by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.04.2016 directing the Settlement Commission to complete the settlement proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of that order. The petitioners claim to have served copy of aforesaid order before the Settlement Commission with letter dated 27.06.2016. The petitioners then made a request vide letter dated 29.06.2016 to the Principal Bench of the Settlement Commission to take up the matters urgently in view of the time limit fixed by Division Bench of this Court. However, since the jurisdiction of the case was transferred to the Additional Bench of the Settlement Commission, matters could not be immediately taken up. Pursuant to letter written by the Secretary, Additional Bench(II) New Delhi to the Secretary, Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking transfer of the record from the Principal Bench to Additional Bench, it transpired that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission may be set aside and reasonable time may be granted/extended to the Settlement Commission to concluding the settlement proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Star Television News Limited Vs. Union of India, (2009) 225 CRT (Bom) 140 wherein it was held that fixing the cutoff date as 31.03.2008 was arbitrary and the provisions of Section 245HA(1)(iv) to that extent will be also arbitrary. Instead of striking down the said provision, Bombay High Court has read down the same by observing that the proceedings could be taken to be abated in the event the application could not be disposed off for any reasons attributable on the part of the applicant, who has made an application under Section 245C. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Star Television News Limited, (2015) 12 SCC 665 wherein the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the aforesaid judgment of Bombay High Court, but issued certain directions. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petitions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law is required to be read down either to uphold its constitutionality and so as to achieve the object and purpose and/or when there is some ambiguity in the provision. In the facts of that case it was further observed by the Gujarat High Court that Section 32F(6) of the Act to the extent it provides abatement of the proceedings in case the Settlement Commission does not pass final order within the time prescribed in the said provision is a complete code with all necessary safeguards and to achieve the object and purpose of speedy disposal of cases and speedy recovery of duties, which is held to be neither unreasonable nor arbitrary and/or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no need to further read down the said provision. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in RNS Infrastructure Limited Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner & Others(Writ Petition No. 46275-46289 of 2016 decided on 07.12.2016) wherein the Settlement Commission had passed order on 27.05.2016. It was contended that the High Court had granted interim stay order in the writ petition filed by the Revenue vide order dated 29.04.2015 which remained in operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within six months. Out of that period of six months, period of two months and five days was lost because the original records of these matters could not be traced and eventually it had to be reconstructed under the order of the Chairman of the Settlement Commission. Even for the remainder period of four months, case of the petitioners is that they are not to be blamed completely. Division Bench of this Court rendered the judgment on 25.04.2016 in the presence of learned counsel for the assessee as well as revenue. Settlement Commission has noted that the petitioners claimed to have deposited copy of the aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of this Court with the Principal Seat of the Settlement Commission at New Delhi with letter dated 27.06.2016 and thereafter, the petitioners vide another letter dated 29.06.2016 made request to fix the cases urgently in view of the time fixed by this Court. Subsequently, the petitioners claim to have personally handed over copies of the letter to the Secretary, Additional Bench II, New Delhi. Accordingly, a letter dated 05.07.2016 was written to the Secretary, Principal Bench, New Delhi to transfer these two cases to that Bench. The Additional B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tlement Commission in its order dated 19.12.2016 noted that since copy of order passed by Division Bench of this Court was served at Principal Bench at New Delhi on 27.06.2016, limitation for passing the order under Section 245D(4) of the Act would expire on 27.12.2016. After getting the Principal Bench's advice on 19.08.2016, earnest attempts were made to reconstruct the files as the matters were very old and records were not readily available with the Principal Bench and thereafter to get comments of both the petitioners and the department. However, the petitioners have delayed sending their comments/counter comments repeatedly. Extension of time for appearance during hearing was also sought, knowing well that the time limit, fixed by Division Bench of this Court was approaching near. Final comments were ultimately furnished by the petitioners on 09.12.2016, just before the limitation date. The department has legitimately sought time to examine the petitioners' comments and contentions, which cannot be granted in view of the limitation that is expiring on 27.12.2016. The Settlement Commission therefore, squarely blamed the petitioners for the delayed responses and repeated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
