Settlement Commission orders face limited writ review; absent fraud, bias or illegality, the High Court will not interfere.

A Settlement Commission order can be interfered with under Article 226 only if it is contrary to the Income-tax Act or is vitiated by fraud, bias or malice; the High Court will not sit in appeal or reappreciate the material. Applying that standard, the HC found no ground to disturb the Commission's settlement order, which had admitted the applications, treated the contracts as composite and severable, held the equipment and plant sales to be offshore and not taxable in India, and confined tax liability to supervisory services. The impugned order was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Settlement Commission allowing settlement of the private respondents' applications required interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Settlement Commission had admitted the applications under Section 245D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and disposed of them after considering the rival contentions, the contracts, the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and the cited authorities. It accepted that the contracts were composite and severable, held that the equipment and plant sales were offshore and therefore not taxable in India, and determined tax liability only in respect of the supervisory services. The Court held that an order of the Settlement Commission is amenable to writ interference only where it is contrary to the Income-tax Act, 1961 or is vitiated by fraud, bias, or malice. No such ground was established, and the Court would not reappreciate the material as if sitting in appeal.

Conclusion: The impugned order did not call for interference under Article 226, and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

---