9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the same settlement proceedings. The final outcome of the said proceedings can possibly affect the present proceedings. Thus, although there may not be a suppression by the petitioners as Writ Tax has not been served upon them, yet keeping in view the pendency of the aforesaid prior writ petition this Court was prima facie inclined to dispose of the present writ petition. As petitioners states that he would be filing a transfer petition in the Apex Court seeking transfer of the Writ Tax to this Court. He states that as the Supreme Court is closed for Diwali break between 07th November to 15th November, 2020, the present writ petition be adjourned to third week of November, 2020 - list the present writ petition on 25 th November, 2020. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner s Report dated 13 th September, 2019 under Section 245D (2B) of the Act and having passed an order in writing declaring the petitioners application in question to be valid vide order dated 26th September, 2019 under Section 245D(2C) and the Commissioner, Income Tax having furnished its report dated 23rd January, 2020 and the petitioners having given their comment dated 26th August, 2020 under Rule 9A, the Settlement Commission should have proceeded to pass the final order under Section 245D(4). He submits that having reached the Section 245D(4) stage, it was not open to the Settlement Commission to pass an order and now call for another report from the Commissioner, Income Tax under Section 245D(3) of the Act and Rule 9 of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September, 2019 under Section 245D(2C) of the Act. He lastly states that there is no violation of principles of natural justice in the present case and in support of his submission, he relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 847. In rejoinder, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for petitioners states that he is not aware of filing of prior writ petition being Writ Tax No.492/2020 by the respondents. Even if that is the case, the undisputed fact remains that the aforenoted petition impugns an anterior order arising from the same settlement proceedings. The final outcome of the said proceedings can possibly affect the present proceedings. Thus, althou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
