CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition in W.P. No. 3780 of 2010 has been filed by the Petitioner company challenging the notice issued by the Income-tax Settlement Commission viz., the first Respondent dated 8.2.2010, while the writ petition in W.P. No. 18871 of 2010 has been filed for a direction against the Respondents to return the documents and share certificates seized during the search conducted on 21.6.2001 from the premises of the Petitioner and also to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to submit its audited returns with the concerned Assessing Officer.

(2.) The Petitioner company is a Class-I contractor in the States of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Puducherry and income-tax Assessee and it forms part of the group of firms and individuals totaling 12 in number, who are treated as a group of Assessees under the Income-tax Act viz.,

(3.) The notice issued by the first Respondent, the Settlement Commission, is challenged on the ground that there is no reason for the proposed reopen of the settlement which was effected by the first Respondent on 4.3.2008, since the materials which are relied upon by the second Respondent for reopening were already very much available at the time when the original settlement order was passed on 4.3.2008; that the first Respondent having passed the settlement order has no jurisdiction since while passing the order on 4.3.2008, the first Respondent considered all the relevant material facts and therefore, the notice itself is a harassment; that the impugned notice also does not disclose as to how two certificates issued by the Petitioner dated 15.4.1994 and 18.4.1995 were found to be bogus and forged ones; that the certificates in question were issued 15 years back in respect of transactions which took place many years before and in such circumstances, even without furnishing a copy of the application made by the second Respondent, the first Respondent issued the impugned notice and therefore, there is a delay of 15 years which results in gross violation of the principles of natural justice; that the impugned notice itself predetermined the entire issue as if the Petitioner had produced forged certificates; that even in respect of the purchase of Vintage Hotel property at Banglore, every point was discussed in detail at the time of original settlement dated 4.3.2008 and the points raised were totally rejected; that the order dated 4.3.2008 having attained finality, cannot be reopened by the first Respondent and that the impugned show-cause notice was issued with premeditation and no useful purpose would be served by raising any objection and therefore, the show-cause notice is challenged.