The power of rectification vested in the Settlement Commission under the IT Act includes the authority to issue impugned notices, and subsequent changes in law do not automatically invalidate such notices.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned notices dt. 31st March, 2003, vide Annex. C, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6 on the file of the first respondent, have presented the instant writ petitions. Further, the petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the first respondent to dismiss the miscellaneous petitions filed by the second respondent herein as not maintainable. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder :

( 2 ) THE petitioners 1 to 4 are registered firms; petitioner Nos. 5 to 8 and 10 are individuals and petitioner No. 9 is an HUF. During the assessment of the petitioners for the asst. yrs. 1993-94; 1995-96 and 1996-97, the petitioners have filed applications before the first respondent for settling their case. The Commission, by a common order dt. 29th Jan. , 2001, has disposed of the applications filed by the petitioners for settlement. Be that as it may.

( 3 ) THE first respondent herein issued the impugned notices seeking to rectify the earlier order dt. 29th Jan. , 2001, referred above. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned notices, felt necessitated to approach this Court by presenting the instant writ petitions.

( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the 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 notification (rectification ). The first respondent, being a quasi-judicial body constituted under the IT Act, 1961 ('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 dt. 29th Jan. , 2001, passed under section 245d (4) in the garb of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is impermissible.

( 5 ) FURTHER, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that, the first respondent has become functus officio and has no jurisdiction to entertain the miscellaneous petitions filed by the second respondent and issue notices to the petitioners. Therefore, the first respondent has no power to rectify its own order under Section 154 r/w Section 245f of the Act. She submitted that it is a settled principle of law that, subsequent changes in law due to amendments and decisions are not a ground for review and any petition filed for amendment of an order due to the change in law is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the first respondent has erred in law in issuing the impugned notices as it has no jurisdiction and ought to have dismissed the miscellaneous petitions filed by the competent authority and the waiver of interest granted by the first respondent is in consonance with the guidelines issued by the CBDT. The first respondent failed to appreciate that, as on the date of passing the order under Section 245d (4), the first respondent had powers to waive interest under Section 234a, 234b and 234c and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are subsequent to the order passed by the first respondent. Hence, the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the instant case or binding on the first respondent Therefore, the proceedings initiated and concluded by issuing the impugned notices is one without any authority of law. Hence, they are liable to be set aside.

( 6 ) TO substantiate her submission, as stated above, she placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Capital Cables (India) (P) Ltd. v. ITSC (2004) 267 ITR 528 (Del), in the case of Netai chandra Rarhi and Co. and Ors. v. ITSC and Ors. (2004 )186 CTR (Cal )706 , [2003 ]263 ITR186 (Cal ) and in the case of Shantesh Gureddi v. State of Karnataka and anr. ILR2003 KAR 3862 , 2003 (6 )Karlj14