Settlement proceedings must address material objections; repeated missed opportunities can justify refusal of further adjournment, but remand follows where grounds are ignored.
Repeated opportunities had already been granted in the settlement proceedings, so refusal of a further adjournment and proceeding ex parte was not arbitrary or illegal on the facts and did not by itself vitiate the order. However, the settlement application raised material factual objections, including alleged multiple counting of single entries and resulting inflation of turnover, and those grounds were not properly examined. Because the order failed to address the substance of the proposal, the HC quashed it and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Issues: (i) Whether refusal of adjournment and proceeding ex parte in the settlement proceedings vitiated the order for want of adequate opportunity. (ii) Whether the settlement proposal and the alleged errors in the assessment required reconsideration and remand.
Issue (i): Refusal of adjournment is not per se illegal where repeated opportunities have already been granted and the authority proceeds after the party fails to appear. Interference is warranted only if the refusal is arbitrary or unreasonable in the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The first challenge failed, as no arbitrariness or illegality in declining further opportunity was found.
Issue (ii): The settlement application contained specific factual objections, including the alleged multiple counting of single entries and consequent inflation of turnover, which were not properly adverted to while deciding the request for settlement. Where material grounds raised in the proposal are not examined, the matter calls for fresh consideration.
Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the settlement order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh decision on the settlement proposal.
Ratio Decidendi: Repeated opportunities may justify refusal of a further adjournment, but an order on a settlement application must address the material grounds raised in the proposal, failing which remand is warranted.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
