AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a common order dated January 29, 2001, has disposed of the applications filed by the petitioners for settlement. Be that as it may. The first respondent herein issued the impugned notices seeking to rectify the earlier order dated January 29, 2001, referred to above. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned notices, felt necessitated to approach this court by presenting the instant writ petitions. The principal submission canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the Settlement Commission has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notices as it has no power to review its own order under the guise of the notification. The first respondent, being a quasi judicial body constituted under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), derives its powers only under the Act. Under section 245-I of the Act, the orders of the first respondent is conclusive and the Act does not empower the Settlement Commission to review its own orders once passed. Further, she vehemently submitted that, the impugned notices issued by the first respondent purports to rectify and amend its order dated January 29, 2001, passed under section 245D(4) in the garb of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... substantiated the impugned notices issued by the competent authority, namely, the first respondent herein, as envisaged under section 154 of the Act read with section 245F of the Act. They submitted that no error or illegality as such has been committed by the respondents in issuing the impugned notices. They submitted that, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned notices, it is always open for the petitioners to file objections to the same and if objections are filed to the said notices, the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law. To substantiate the said stand, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the decision in the case of Andrew Nettikkadan v. Asst. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 708 (Ker) and submitted that the petitioners have not made out any good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court as envisaged under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed in limine. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned senior standing counsel appearing for the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of this Chapter, have power to regulate its own procedure and the procedure of Benches thereof in all matters arising out of the exercise of its powers or of the discharge of its functions, including the places at which the Benches shall hold their sittings." After careful reading of section 154 of the Act, it can be very well seen that, the statute has provided power to the competent authority, in the case of an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall be done only after giving notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and that reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. In the instant case, it can be seen that fifteen days' time has been given to the petitioners from the date of receipt of the said notice to file objections. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, in pursuance of the applications filed by them before the Settlement Commission, the competent authority after consideration, has passed the order as early as on January 29, 2001, and that order has reached finality and hence, at this stage, invoking section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court. Further, when the court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party should avail of the alternate remedy and show cause against the same before the authority concerned and take up the objection regarding jurisdiction also, then. In the event of an adverse decision, it will certainly be open to him, to assail the same either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, or in appropriate cases." It is crystal clear in view of the well-settled law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court, as stated supra, in a large number of cases that the hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning the legality of show cause notices, stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. The courts should bear in mind that, there is no attack against the vires of the statutory provisions governing the matter and the impugned notices cannot be said that they are ex facie a "nullity" or totally "without jurisdiction". It is a duty cast on the petitioners to show that the authority has no power or jurisdiction to enter upon the enquiry. Mere taking a st....