Voluntary settlement challenge barred: writ under Article 32 cannot unwind consensual tax settlements absent proven vitiation of consent.

A taxpayer who voluntarily entered into and accepted a settlement with the Central Government cannot use a writ under Article 32 to annul statutory provisions or to recover amounts paid; where the grievance arises from a consensual arrangement the court held Article 32 is not the appropriate remedy. Allegations that consent was procured under pressure or that the statute is coercive raise questions of vitiation of consent and statute validity, but those matters must be established in an appropriate forum; accordingly the Article 32 petition was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a taxpayer who has entered into and accepted a settlement under the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 can, by a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenge the validity of Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 8-A of that Act and seek quashing of proceedings and restoration of amounts paid under the settlement.

Analysis: The petition challenged the validity of specified sections of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 and sought restoration of sums paid pursuant to a settlement agreed between the taxpayer and the Central Government. The settlement was voluntarily proposed by the taxpayer, accepted by the Central Government, and payments were made and scheduled under its terms. In these circumstances the grievance arose from a consensual arrangement; Article 32 is not designed to provide relief against voluntary actions of a person. Allegations that consent was procured under pressure or that the Act is coercive raise issues about vitiation of consent and the validity of the statute, but such allegations are matters for an appropriate forum other than a writ under Article 32 unless it is established that the consent itself was improperly procured and the petitioner is not bound by it.

Conclusion: The petition under Article 32 is misconceived and fails; the petitioner cannot, by that route, set aside the settlement or obtain restoration of amounts paid. The petition is dismissed with costs, against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue.

---