Limited judicial review of Settlement Commission orders applies only for illegality, natural justice breach, fraud, bias or jurisdictional error.

Judicial review of a Settlement Commission order under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act is confined to jurisdictional error, procedural illegality, breach of natural justice, fraud, bias, or misrepresentation, and does not permit reappreciation of the settlement on merits. The statutory scheme requires a full and true disclosure of undisclosed income, disclosure of the manner of derivation, consideration of the Commissioner's report, hearing of the parties, and a reasoned order under Section 245D. Finality under Section 245I does not exclude writ jurisdiction, but interference remains narrow. On the stated facts, the Commission followed the prescribed procedure and no fraud or legal infirmity was shown, so no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Settlement Commission's order under the Income-tax Act, 1961 suffered from any procedural or substantive infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and whether the scope of judicial review over such an order was confined to jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, violation of natural justice, fraud or malice.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of settlement under Chapter XIX-A requires an application containing a full and true disclosure of undisclosed income, the manner in which it was derived, and the additional tax payable. The procedure under Section 245D contemplates notice, consideration of the Commissioner's report, opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned settlement order. The finality attached to a settlement order under Section 245I does not bar writ jurisdiction, but the scope of interference remains narrow. Interference is justified only where the order is contrary to the Act or suffers from procedural illegality, breach of natural justice, bias, fraud, or misrepresentation. On the facts, the Commission followed the prescribed procedure, heard both sides, and there was no showing of fraud or misrepresentation.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the settlement order.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the impugned settlement order disclosed no legal infirmity that could justify supervisory interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review of a Settlement Commission order under Article 226 is limited to illegality in the decision-making process, violation of natural justice, or fraud or bias, and does not extend to reappreciation of the settlement on merits in the absence of such infirmity.

---