Rule 68B limitation and settlement finality cannot be isolated from ongoing instalment compliance and extension proceedings.

Rule 68B limitation for recovery does not run in isolation where a settlement order is linked to instalment compliance, extension requests, and continuing proceedings before the Settlement Commission. On the facts, the petitioner had sought time and continued to seek accommodation, so the court held that the original settlement order could not be detached from the later compliance process to defeat attachment or sale. The order under section 245D(4) was also not treated as having attained the immutable finality claimed by the petitioner, because the statutory settlement scheme preserved control over payment, default consequences, and related proceedings. The recovery steps were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale and attachment of the petitioner's immovable property were barred by limitation under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, in view of the order of the Settlement Commission; (ii) Whether the Settlement Commission's order dated 1 December 2011 had become conclusive despite the petitioner's non-compliance with the instalment schedule and the pending request for extension of time.

Issue (i): Whether the sale and attachment of the petitioner's immovable property were barred by limitation under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, in view of the order of the Settlement Commission.

Analysis: Rule 68B makes the limitation period run from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand becomes conclusive. The petitioner sought and obtained instalment-based payment under the Settlement Commission's order, later sought extension of time, and continued to seek accommodation from the Department and the Commission. In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner could not isolate the original settlement order and invoke limitation while ignoring his own request for extension and the continuing proceedings connected with compliance.

Conclusion: The limitation plea under Rule 68B failed and did not invalidate the attachment or sale proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the Settlement Commission's order dated 1 December 2011 had become conclusive despite the petitioner's non-compliance with the instalment schedule and the pending request for extension of time.

Analysis: The order under section 245D(4) granted instalments and was part of a statutory scheme under Chapter XIX-A, including sections governing payment, interest, penalty, rectification, and withdrawal of immunity. The Court held that the Settlement Commission retained control over compliance and that the order could not be read in isolation from the petitioner's own application for extension and the ongoing proceedings. On the facts, the petitioner's continued default prevented him from claiming that the order had reached an immutable finality for the purpose of defeating recovery.

Conclusion: The Settlement Commission's order was not treated as conclusive in the manner suggested by the petitioner so as to bar recovery.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because the recovery steps were upheld and the petitioner was found to be disentitled to relief in writ jurisdiction on the facts and statutory scheme.

---