Gopi Erectors v. The Income Tax Settlement Commission& Ors
High Court
27 Jul 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Gopi Erectors v. The Income Tax Settlement Commission& Ors
Date of order
27 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Gopi Erectors v. The Income Tax Settlement Commission& Ors, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Issue: The limited issue for our consideration is whether we should interfere with the discretion exercised by the Settlement Commission in the matter of waiver of interest.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Mgn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1138 OF 2009
Gopi Erectors
...........Petitioner
Vs.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission& Ors......Respondents
Mr. Mandar Vaidya, for the Petitioner.Mr. Vimal Gupta, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G.KARNIK, JJ.
DATED : 27[th] JULY, 2009
P.C.
The limited issue for our consideration is whether we should interfere with the discretion exercised by the Settlement Commission in the matter of waiver of interest. The petitioner had applied to the Settlement Commission in November, 1996. The final order under Section 245D was passed on 31[st] December, 2007. Considering the long pendency before the Settlement Commission the Settlement Commission itself has waived 75% of the interest chargeable.
2.The petitioner has come here challenging the refusal by the Settlement Commission to waive the balance 25%. Once a party went before the Settlement Commission and submitted to its jurisdiction and on the facts before it the Settlement Commission chose to waive 75% interest, in our opinion that cannot be faulted with. This is not a fit case to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence petition rejected.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
(F.I. REBELLO,J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.