Court sets aside Settlement Commission's orders, emphasizing rectification for apparent mistakes only. Original order final.

The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Settlement Commission's orders revising the final order, emphasizing that rectification could only be done for a mistake apparent from the record, not based on subsequent legal developments. The court reaffirmed the finality of the original order and clarified that the department could demand interest as per that order. The court highlighted that errors not affecting jurisdiction should be challenged through a writ of certiorari, and subsequent legal decisions cannot be a ground for review.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the Settlement Commission's order revising previous final orders based on jurisdiction and authority.

Analysis:
In this case, the petitioner sought to quash the Settlement Commission's order revising its final order and a subsequent order, arguing lack of jurisdiction for such revision. The court considered the power of the Settlement Commission to rectify its order, citing a previous case where the court allowed a writ petition challenging a similar action by the Commission. The court highlighted that the statute did not provide for a power of review for the Commission, and any rectification could only be done for a mistake apparent from the record. The court emphasized that subsequent legal developments could not be a ground for review, especially when there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders but clarified that the original order of the Settlement Commission would stand final, and the department could demand interest as per that order.

The court also referred to a case where the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Commission could not rectify its earlier order under Section 245D of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized that rectification could not be based on subsequent legal decisions and that errors not affecting the Commission's jurisdiction should be challenged through a writ of certiorari. The court made it clear that subsequent legal developments could not be a ground for exercising review jurisdiction and that the Department should not be non-suited based on such grounds. The court ultimately quashed the impugned orders and reaffirmed the finality of the original order of the Settlement Commission.

---