TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;s application for settlement under Section 245C of the Act relating to Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2014-15. The application for settlement filed under Section 245C of the Act by the petitioner was rejected to the extent it related to Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 by the impugned order for failure to disclose in its application additional tax payable for those years. However, the application for settlement was accepted by the impugned order to the extent it related to Assessment Year 2010-11. So far as application for settlement for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 is concerned, the same is settled by the Commission at a figure higher than that offered by the petitioner. This on account of havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or practices between different benches. This is done so as to comply with the basic constituent of Rule of law i.e. consistency, certainty and equal application of law to all who approach the commission. Therefore, prima facie, the three member bench of the Commission which passed the impugned order was bound by the decision of the five member bench in Airtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and could not disregard the same on the basis that the five member bench has not properly appreciated the law. This prima facie would amount judicial indiscipline. 4. It is an admitted position before us that consequent to the passing of the impugned order, the Chairperson of the Commission on 18th November, 2016 in the case of Neptune Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Bench of the Commission in the case of Neptune Developers & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 7. It is contended by the petitioner that an application for settlement is one, though it may comprise of more than one assessment years. Therefore, the Commission can either entertain the application as a whole or not at all. It is not open to the Commission to settle the disputes for some of the assessment years in the application and reject it for the other years. In the above view, it is clarified that the impugned order of the Settlement Commission to the extent it has accepted the settlement for Assessment Year 2010-11 will be subject to the result of this petition. 8. Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n tax demand of Rs. 34.71 crores for A.Y. 2013-14. So far as A.Y. 2014-15 is concerned, the additional tax payable was of Rs. 1.51 crores was on account of write off of VAT refund of Rs. 6.95 crores not being allowed. 11. We heard the parties for some time in respect of grant of interim reliefs for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. However, before we could take any definite view in respect thereof, Mr. Sridharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that for the present he does not press for interim reliefs but seeks liberty to file an appropriate Notice of Motion with affidavit in support explaining the petitioner's case for interim reliefs, if so advised. In any case, Mr.Sridharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on ....