2018 (9) TMI 116 - HC - Income Tax

Settlement Commission order - visit by the Chairman of the Settlement Commission in Mumbai on 2nd August, 2018 - Held that - We find that the Petitioners are not precluded from challenging the manner in which the Chairman intervened in this matter at a later stage. We would not like to interfere with the pending proceedings for then we would commit the same mistake, if at all, committed by the learned Chairman. It would not be proper to presume at this stage that the Proceedings are necessarily going to an end, with final orders, but adverse to the Petitioners interests. For all we know the settlement may go through to the satisfaction of all parties before the Settlement Commission. In the event the apprehension comes true and the Chairman s meeting and discussion with the members of the Commission results in an adverse order as apprehended, then, while challenging such final orders and if they are found to be influenced by the Chairman s alleged uncalled for and undue intervention, the Petitioners can raise appropriate pleas and urge before this Court that they have not been dealt with fairly by the Settlement Commission. There is a uncalled for interference in judicial proceedings and none including the Chairman can direct a particular course of action to be taken or a particular order being passed in pending judicial proceedings. Thus, the out-come of judicial proceedings cannot be controlled in this manner. We keep open all such pleas of the Petitioners, despite their participation in the hearing before the larger Bench. In the event the final orders are adverse, then, amongst other grounds to challenge them, the Petitioners can raise appropriate pleas in relation to the impugned Communications.

Issues Involved:
1. Fair treatment by the Settlement Commission.
2. Interference by the Chairman of the Settlement Commission in pending judicial proceedings.
3. Setting up of a larger Bench by the Settlement Commission.
4. Procedural propriety and independence of quasi-judicial bodies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Fair treatment by the Settlement Commission:
The Petitioners expressed apprehension that they would not be treated fairly by the Settlement Commission due to events following a visit by the Chairman of the Settlement Commission to Mumbai on 2nd August 2018. They argued that their Settlement Applications, which were in the normal course scheduled for hearing and final disposal, were subject to undue interference by the Chairman, raising concerns about impartiality and fairness in the proceedings.

2. Interference by the Chairman of the Settlement Commission in pending judicial proceedings:
The Petitioners contended that the Chairman's communication to the Secretary of the Additional Bench of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai, indicating a desire to peruse papers and final orders in cases related to MAAD Realtors and M/s Ahuja Builders, constituted undue interference. They argued that such actions by the Chairman, who is higher in hierarchy, set a wrong precedent and created a serious apprehension that the Settlement Commission would not deal with their cases strictly in accordance with law.

3. Setting up of a larger Bench by the Settlement Commission:
Following the Chairman's visit, the Revenue made an application for a larger Bench to deal with the Petitioners' applications, which was promptly granted. The Petitioners questioned this mode of dealing with their cases, emphasizing that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done. They requested the Court to entertain their Writ Petitions and pass appropriate orders to address their concerns.

4. Procedural propriety and independence of quasi-judicial bodies:
The Respondents argued that the cases of MAAD Realtors and M/s Ahuja Builders were disposed of and that the Chairman's visit and perusal of case papers in disposed matters would not influence the outcome of the Petitioners' proceedings. They asserted that the Petitioners' apprehensions were baseless and requested the dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

Judgment Analysis:

Hearing and Observations:
The Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the Petitioners were not precluded from challenging the Chairman's intervention at a later stage. The Court emphasized that it would not interfere with the pending proceedings to avoid committing the same mistake as the Chairman. The Court acknowledged that the Petitioners could raise appropriate pleas if the final orders were adverse and influenced by the Chairman's alleged undue intervention.

Independence and Impartiality:
The judgment highlighted the importance of independence and impartiality in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. It reiterated that no authority, including the Chairman, could direct a particular course of action or order in pending judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that the outcome of judicial proceedings should not be controlled in such a manner, preserving the integrity and sanctity of the judicial process.

Public Hearings and Open Sittings:
The Court underscored the significance of public hearings and open sittings in ensuring fairness and the purity of the judicial process. It cautioned against discussions related to judicial orders in private meetings, emphasizing that judicial bodies must act without fear or favor, upholding the Constitution and the laws.

Reference to Supreme Court Judgments:
The judgment referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Naim, Narendra Madivalapa Kheni Vs. Manikrao Patil and Ors., and Pancham Chand and Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., to reinforce the principles of judicial independence and the non-interference of higher authorities in the discretion of quasi-judicial bodies.

Conclusion and Disposition:
The Court disposed of the Writ Petitions with clarifications, leaving the matter to the wisdom of the Chairman and advising against such interventions in the future. The Court reiterated that all authorities must decide issues before them in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any external interventions or directions.

Final Remarks:
The judgment emphasized the trust placed in judicial bodies by litigants and the necessity for these bodies to act independently and impartially. The Court reminded all concerned of the principles of judicial independence and the assurance of justice as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

← Previous Next →