Limited judicial review of Settlement Commission orders bars selective challenge to adverse findings after voluntary settlement.

A writ court cannot permit an assessee to accept the favourable part of a Settlement Commission order while challenging only the adverse part, because a settlement application is a composite proceeding. Judicial review over Settlement Commission orders is narrowly confined, and the High Court cannot sit in appeal to reassess factual findings or the correctness of conclusions unless there is total non-application of mind, perversity, or breach of natural justice. On those grounds, the writ petition was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ court can interfere with an order of the Settlement Commission where the assessee seeks to accept the favourable portion and challenge only the adverse portion.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged only selected parts of the Settlement Commission's order relating to service tax liability and penalty. The Court held that an assessee who has voluntarily approached the Settlement Commission cannot dissect the order and selectively accept what is favourable while disputing the rest. It further held that the scope of judicial review over Settlement Commission orders is very limited and the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority to re-examine findings of fact or correctness of the Commission's conclusions, absent total non-application of mind, perversity, or violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the grounds urged and was dismissed.

---