Retrospective cut-off in settlement scheme could not support rejection orders; applications to be considered under binding earlier ruling.

An earlier binding ruling had read down the retrospective cut-off in the amended settlement regime and treated the relevant applications as pending before the Interim Board. Applying that interpretation, the Madras HC set aside rejection orders in the settlement proceedings, holding that orders founded on the cut-off could not stand. The matter was directed to proceed in accordance with the earlier directions, so the assessee's applications were to be considered under the amended settlement framework as construed by the Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders passed in the settlement proceedings were liable to be set aside and the matters disposed of in terms of the earlier decision governing the amended settlement provisions.

Analysis: The order records that similar matters had already been decided by reading down the amended settlement provision and by treating applications for the relevant period as pending before the Interim Board. On that basis, the Court directed that the Settlement Commissioner act in tune with the earlier order. The impugned orders were then set aside.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded to the extent that the impugned orders were annulled and the matters were to proceed in accordance with the earlier binding directions, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of by applying the earlier ruling on the amended settlement regime, resulting in restoration of the petitioners' entitlement to have their applications considered in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier binding order has read down the retrospective cut-off in the amended settlement scheme, subsequent rejection orders based on that cut-off cannot stand and must be set aside.

---