Writ review of Settlement Commission orders is limited to procedural illegality, not reappreciation of disclosure merits.

In writ review of a Settlement Commission order, interference is confined to illegality in the decision-making process or failure to follow the prescribed procedure. The Commission's finding that the applicant had not made full and true disclosure of income not already known to the Department was supported by the record, and the court would not reappreciate the merits or substitute a different view on disclosure. As no procedural illegality or arbitrariness was shown in the manner the application was dealt with, the rejection of the settlement application was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's settlement application under section 245C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner had made full and true disclosure and that the Settlement Commission acted arbitrarily.

Analysis: The finding of the Settlement Commission that the petitioner had not made full and true disclosure of income not known to the Department was not shown to be unsupported by the record. The decision whether an application under section 245C(1) should be allowed to proceed had to be taken by the Settlement Commission by giving due weight to the matters indicated in section 245D. In writ jurisdiction, the focus is on the legality of the procedure and the decision-making process, not on reappreciation of the merits. No procedural illegality or failure to follow the prescribed procedure was established.

Conclusion: The rejection of the settlement application was not liable to interference, and the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ review of an order of the Settlement Commission, the court interferes only where the decision-making process is illegal or procedurally flawed, and not merely because a different view on disclosure or settlement discretion is possible.

---