https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13025 Immunity granted by the Settlement Commission did not bar prosecution where the settlement proceedings did not cover the same subject-matter as the criminal complaint. Although the settlement applications were filed before the complaint, the statutory bar in the proviso to section 245H(1) was inapplicable because the immunity order was conditional and the alleged transactions underlying the complaint were not truly settled. The Court also found that the disclosure before the Settlement Commission lacked the jurisdictional basis for valid settlement, as it followed discovery by the tax authorities. The criminal complaint was therefore not quashed and the prosecution was allowed to proceed. en-us Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 May 2009 10:11:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13025 Immunity granted by the Settlement Commission did not bar prosecution where the settlement proceedings did not cover the same subject-matter as the criminal complaint. Although the settlement applications were filed before the complaint, the statutory bar in the proviso to section 245H(1) was inapplicable because the immunity order was conditional and the alleged transactions underlying the complaint were not truly settled. The Court also found that the disclosure before the Settlement Commission lacked the jurisdictional basis for valid settlement, as it followed discovery by the tax authorities. The criminal complaint was therefore not quashed and the prosecution was allowed to proceed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13025