https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16955 Filing a settlement application under section 245C does not by itself oust income-tax prosecution powers or invalidate a complaint and cognizance order. Exclusive jurisdiction under section 245F(2) arises only after the Settlement Commission allows the application to be proceeded with under section 245D(1); until then, sanction for prosecution under section 279(1) and the complaint remain valid. Pendency, or even progression, of settlement proceedings also does not create an automatic stay of criminal prosecution. Criminal and assessment proceedings are distinct, and any adjournment or postponement depends on the facts, not a blanket rule. The text therefore states that quashing and stay are not warranted merely because settlement proceedings are pending. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:38:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16955 Filing a settlement application under section 245C does not by itself oust income-tax prosecution powers or invalidate a complaint and cognizance order. Exclusive jurisdiction under section 245F(2) arises only after the Settlement Commission allows the application to be proceeded with under section 245D(1); until then, sanction for prosecution under section 279(1) and the complaint remain valid. Pendency, or even progression, of settlement proceedings also does not create an automatic stay of criminal prosecution. Criminal and assessment proceedings are distinct, and any adjournment or postponement depends on the facts, not a blanket rule. The text therefore states that quashing and stay are not warranted merely because settlement proceedings are pending. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16955