High Court denies installment payment post-Settlement Commission order; stresses finality, legislative intent

The High Court declined to grant installments for dues payment after a Settlement Commission order, citing the absence of such provision in the Commission's order and legislative changes. The court emphasized the finality of the Commission's order, noting the lack of statutory authority for installment payments post the legislative amendment. The court highlighted the importance of settlement terms under Section 32F(8) and the Finance Bill's stipulations on settlement conditions and payment timelines. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed without costs, upholding the Settlement Commission's order's conclusive nature and the legislative intent regarding installment payment exclusions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to grant installments when not provided by the Settlement Commission.

Analysis:
The case involved a petition where the Petitioners sought permission to pay their dues in installments after the Settlement Commission's order. The issue was whether the High Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction, could grant installments when not provided by the Settlement Commission. The counsel relied on circulars issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, allowing payment by installments in deserving cases. However, the Settlement Commission's order did not include such provision.

The application was filed in 2007, and the Settlement Commission passed an order in 2008. The relevant legal provisions were discussed, including the substitution of Section 32F by Act No. 22 of 2007, which impacted the power to grant installments. Earlier, the Petitioners had challenged a Commission order in a previous petition, which was sent back for fresh hearing. The importance of Section 32F(8) in terms of settlement terms and conditions was highlighted.

The Finance Bill specified time limits for the disposal of settlement applications and set conditions for settlement orders, emphasizing that the settlement amount must be paid within 30 days without extension. The court noted changes in the legislation that removed the explicit provision for installments, indicating the legislative intent to exclude such payment options. Comparisons were drawn with provisions under the Income Tax Act, showing differences in treatment regarding installment payments.

Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing the finality of the Settlement Commission's order and the lack of legislative provision for installments under the current law. The judgment discharged the rule with no costs awarded.

---