Article 32 and voluntary tax settlement liability: challenge fails unless consent is first shown to be vitiated.

Article 32 was held unavailable to challenge liability arising from a settlement voluntarily proposed by the assessee and accepted by the Central Government under the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947. Because the liability flowed from the assessee's own settlement and no ordinary income-tax assessment had been made, relief depended on proving that consent was improperly obtained and the settlement was non-binding; absent such showing, no infringement of fundamental rights was made out on the pleaded facts. A coercion-based challenge had to be pursued in appropriate proceedings, not under Article 32.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Article 32 was maintainable to challenge liability arising from a settlement voluntarily proposed by the assessee and accepted by the Central Government under the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947.

Analysis: The liability enforced against the petitioner flowed from the settlement he had himself proposed and which the Central Government had accepted. No assessment was made by following the ordinary income-tax procedure, and the relief sought depended on showing that his consent had been improperly procured and that the settlement was not binding. In the absence of such a showing, no infringement of fundamental rights could be made out on the facts pleaded. Article 32 is not a remedy against voluntary acts, and a challenge based on coercion or invalid consent had to be pursued in appropriate proceedings elsewhere.

Conclusion: The petition under Article 32 was not maintainable on these facts and was rightly dismissed against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 32 cannot be invoked to avoid the consequences of a voluntary settlement unless the consent is first shown to be vitiated and non-binding.

---