Settlement Commission orders are protected from writ interference absent patent breach of the statutory settlement scheme.

Writ interference with a Settlement Commission order under Articles 226 and 227 is confined to cases where the order contravenes the statutory settlement scheme under Sections 245C and 245D or the prescribed procedure. The Gujarat High Court noted that the Commission had examined the materials, considered the Rule 9 report, and accepted a further offer in the spirit of settlement; the later disclosure was only marginally higher than the original disclosure and did not by itself show lack of true and full disclosure. The challenge therefore failed and the settlement order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Settlement Commission's order could be interfered with on the ground that the assessee had not made true and full disclosure of undisclosed income, and whether the later additional disclosure justified application of the principle in Ajmera Housing Corporation.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was invoked to test whether the Commission acted contrary to the settlement scheme under Sections 245C and 245D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commission had examined the materials, considered the report under Rule 9 of the Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997, and accepted the assessee's further offer in the nature of settlement. The additional amount disclosed during the proceedings was comparatively marginal against the original disclosure, and the Court applied the settled principle that interference is warranted only where the Commission's order is contrary to the statutory provisions or the procedure prescribed thereunder. The case was distinguished from a situation of impermissible revised disclosure at the threshold.

Conclusion: The challenge failed. The Court held that no case for interference with the Settlement Commission's order was made out and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The settlement order was sustained, and the Court declined to exercise writ interference on the facts presented.

Ratio Decidendi: In judicial review of a settlement order, interference is confined to patent contravention of the statutory scheme, and an additional disclosure made in the spirit of settlement, without a substantive departure from the original disclosure, does not by itself establish absence of true and full disclosure.

---