2016 (8) TMI 1313 - SC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - the Division Bench has opined that there had been no full disclosure by the assessee. Mr. Bagaria would seriously oppose the same by submitting that the entire facts and figures were departmentally scrutinized and it was found that there had been full disclosure - Held that - it is a fit case where the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the order passed by the Settlement Commission should be set aside, subject to deposit of ₹ 75 crores before the department by the appellant within a period of twelve weeks and, accordingly, we so direct - After the amount is deposited, the Settlement Commission shall hear the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the order passed by the High Court regarding disclosure by the assessee.
2. Review of the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the Settlement Commission.
3. Direction for the appellant to deposit a specified amount before the department within a given timeframe.
4. Instructions to the Settlement Commission regarding further proceedings.

Interpretation of High Court Order:
The Supreme Court analyzed the High Court's order, noting the Division Bench's opinion that there was insufficient disclosure by the assessee. The appellant's counsel contended that all facts were scrutinized, leading to full disclosure. The Court considered these arguments but did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Review of High Court and Settlement Commission Orders:
After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court decided to set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and the Settlement Commission. The Court directed the appellant to deposit ?75 crores before the department within twelve weeks. Following this deposit, the Settlement Commission was instructed to hear the parties and make appropriate decisions without referencing the High Court's judgment.

Direction for Deposit and Further Proceedings:
The Court allowed the appeal to the extent mentioned, emphasizing that there would be no order regarding costs. The appellant was required to deposit the specified amount within the stipulated time frame, after which the Settlement Commission would proceed with the case in accordance with the law, disregarding the High Court's order.

This judgment showcases the Supreme Court's intervention in a case where the High Court's findings on disclosure were contested. By setting aside previous orders and providing clear directions for deposit and subsequent proceedings, the Court ensured a fair and unbiased resolution while refraining from expressing any opinion on the case's merits.