AKIL KURESHI,J. - (1.) These petitions arise in common background and involve common issues. All the petitions are directed against a common order of the Settlement Commission dated 28.08.2017. The petitioners had filed applications for settlement for the block period way back in the year 2003. When these applications were pending before the Settlement Commission, certain amendments were made in the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) in the chapter pertaining to settlement of cases by virtue of which a settlement application would abate if not disposed of within prescribed time. The petitioners approached the High Court by filing various individual petitions contending that by virtue of operation of these statutory provisions, their settlement applications are likely to abate shortly. They have not attributed to any delay in disposal of the settlement applications. The statute which brings about such harsh consequences for no fault of the petitioners is therefore not valid. These petitions along with similar petitions of other petitioners being Special Civil Application No.5208 of 2008 and connected petitions came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 16.05.2008. The Court noted that the Supreme Court vide an order dated 31.03.2008 passed in case of Prabhu Dayal v. Union of India, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.113 of 2008 , was seized of identical situation. The Court had passed interim order on 31.03.2008 staying the provisions for abatement of proceedings for settlement of the petitioner therein. The Court noted the readiness of the petitioners to abide by the outcome of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Prabhu Dayal (supra). The Court therefore disposed of all the writ petitions in following terms: "6. We, therefore, dispose of these petitions with a direction that the petitioners as well as the respondents shall abide by the outcome of Writ Petition (Civil) No.113 of 2008 and connected matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. We further direct that till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the issue which is raised in the present group of petitions, the assessing authorities and the appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall not take up the matters which are to be treated as pending before the Settlement Commission and disposal of these petitions on the above ground shall not come in the way of the Settlement Commission in disposing of the matters before it in accordance with law. 8. Liberty to revive the petitions in case of necessity, upon filing a note before the Registry."
(2.) After this order was passed by the High Court, two important developments took place. The Supreme Court disposed of the case of Prabhu Dayal (supra) by an order dated 11.03.2011 allowing the petitioner to withdraw the petition. Thus, the proceedings before the Supreme Court in case of Prabhu Dayal (supra) came to be disposed of without a decision on the controversy at hand. The second important development was that the Bombay High Court in case of Star Television News Ltd. v. Union of India and others reported in [2009] 317 ITR 66 (Bom) considered a similar challenge to the same statutory provisions providing for abatement of settlement proceedings. The Court read down the provisions and declared that it is a statutory duty of the Settlement Commission to dispose of an application which is filed before it unless due to any reasons attributable to the applicant, the Settlement Commission has been prevented from fulfilling the said duty and only in such a case the proceedings would abate on the date specified under section 245HA(1)(iv) of the Act. The Court required that the Settlement Commission should consider whether the proceedings had been delayed on account of any reasons attributable to the applicant. If the conclusion is that it was so, the application for settlement would abate. We may record that this judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Star Television News Ltd. (supra) was carried by the Revenue to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide its judgment in case of Union of India v. Star Television News Ltd. reported in [2015] 373 ITR 578 (SC) approved the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
(3.) With this background, when the proceedings were taken up by Settlement Commission for hearing, both sides made their arguments on the question of abatement. The Settlement Commission by the impugned order declared that all the proceedings had abated on the ground that the petitioners had earlier approached the High Court and agreed to abide by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Prabhu Dayal (supra) and no relief was granted by the Supreme Court in such case. This was the only ground on which the applications have been closed.;