Satyam Oils v. Union of India & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain ,Advocate for the petitioner

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 4.6.2009 (P.3) passed by the Settlement Commissioner rejecting the application of the petitioner for settlement of income tax dispute under Section 240(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for brevity 'the Act') in respect of assessment year 2006-07. However, the application has been entertained in respect of assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The principal ground for refusing to entertain the application of the petitioner disclosed in the impugned order is that assessment in respect of year 2006-07 has been concluded and it cannot be subject matter of any settlement proceedings. A glance at the impugned order shows that it is only the pending proceedings which can be re-opened. When we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the proceedings could be re- opened by the Assessing Officer in view of the opinion expressed by the Settlement Commissioner, he has expressed an apprehension that the CWP No.12134-09 `2 Assessing Officer may issue a notice to the petitioner under Section 247 of the Act. However, we do not find any cause of action on the basis of the aforesaid apprehension. All the same, we leave it open to the petitioner to approach this Court as and when notice is issued by the Assessing Officer resulting into arising of cause of action for filing a petition. The instant petition is wholly premature at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed being premature. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) Judge

12.8.2009