1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Settlement with main noticee ends proceedings for co-noticees, penalties set aside.</h1> The Tribunal held that when the main noticee settles with the Settlement Commission, the proceedings against co-noticees should be considered concluded. ... Imposition of penalty - Whether the proceedings against the co-noticees can be considered as concluded, when the matter has been settled by the main noticee before the Settlement Commission? Held that: - the proceeding against the co-noticees come to an end when the main noticee has settled the matter before the Settlement Commission - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Consideration of proceedings against co-noticees when the main noticee settles with Settlement Commission.Analysis:The appeals involved in this case were filed by co-noticees against the penalty imposed, with the main appellants having settled their matter before the Settlement Commission. The main legal issue was whether the proceedings against co-noticees should be considered concluded in such circumstances. The appellant's counsel argued that once the main appellants settled with the Settlement Commission, the proceedings against co-noticees should also be considered concluded, citing relevant tribunal decisions. On the other hand, the Ld. AR relied on different cases to support the continuation of proceedings against co-noticees.The Tribunal analyzed various precedents to resolve the legal issue at hand. It referred to the case of S.K. Colombowala, where a majority decision held that proceedings against co-noticees should be considered concluded when the main noticee settles with the Settlement Commission. However, a Division Bench in a different case took a different view, leading to a reference to a Larger Bench. The Larger Bench considered the S.K. Colombowala decision as effectively its own and remitted the matter for disposal by a Single Member.In the case of M.K. Darewala, the Tribunal applied the S.K. Colombowala decision, stating that when the main noticee settles with the Settlement Commission, proceedings against co-noticees should also be considered concluded. This approach was further supported by recent judgments in other cases. The Tribunal disagreed with the view that a judgment not explicitly considered is not a binding precedent, emphasizing that decisions of Larger Benches are binding on Division Benches and Single Members when deciding on a principle of law.Ultimately, the Tribunal held that when the main noticee settles with the Settlement Commission, the proceedings against co-noticees should be considered concluded. As a result, the impugned orders imposing penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential reliefs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
