AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—In all these writ petitions as common question is involved and has been preferred by the petitioners, the respective
Commissioners of Income Tax, (hereinafter referred to as the ''Revenue''), they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
The concerned 2nd respondent-assessee of the cases made application u/s 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ''IT
Act'') in prescribed form making disclosure of their respective income, stated to be true and had not been disclosed before the assessing officer.
On receipt of such applications, the Settlement Commission called for reports in each case from the Commissioner of Income Tax and on the basis
of the materials contained in such report and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, while observed that there is complexity of
investigation involved therein, allowed the applications to be proceeded with in accordance with Section 245D of the IT Act. Such orders u/s
245D passed by the Settlement Commission in respective cases have been challenged by the Revenue, mainly on the ground that the applications
preferred by the assessee did not fulfil the requirements of Section 245C and there being gross non-application of mind by the Settlement
Commission on the issue, the impugned orders to proceed u/s 245D is bad.
Mr. G.E.Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General led the case, W.P. No.19772/05, wherein order dated 17th Feb., 2005, passed by the
Settlement Commission u/s 245D(1), allowing the application to be proceeded, is under challenge. For the said reason, we intend to deliberate
with the relevant facts of assessee, the 2nd respondent to the writ petition, W.P. No.19772/05.
The 2nd respondent-assessee, filed a return for the assessment year 1998-99 disclosing total income of Rs. 3,51,788/=, which was revised to
Rs. 4,57,520/=. Certain additions were made to the assessment, including addition u/s 68 of the IT Act of a sum of Rs. 1.72 Crores in respect of
loans from creditors. Further relief sought for u/s 80HHC of the IT Act being restricted to Rs. 2.45 lakhs as against Rs. 56.06 lakhs claimed by the
said respondent. The assessment as was made had been appealed against before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the
pendency of the said appeal, the 2nd respondent-assessee filed application u/s 245C(1) before the Settlement Commission in the form prescribed
with Annexures I to III as enclosed with the paper-book. The Settlement Commission, thereafter, asked for a report from the Commissioner,
Income Tax. On receipt of such report, the Settlement Commission, on a consideration of the matter, including the nature and circumstances of the
case, came to a conclusion that there is complexity of investigation involved and allowed the application to be proceeded with by impugned order
dated 17th Feb., 2005.
Similar applications u/s 245C were preferred by the other assessees, who are the 2nd respondent to the respective writ petitions. In all those
cases, respective reports were called for from the Commissioner of Income Tax and after receipt of report, averting to each of the case and taking
into consideration the nature and circumstances of each case, the Settlement Commission came to a definite conclusion that there is complexity of
investigation involved and by different impugned orders allowed the applications to be proceeded with.
Learned Solicitor General, referring Annexures II and III, submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,72,00,000/= purported to have been disclosed as
unsecured credit u/s 68 cannot be treated to be a full and true disclosure of income, which had not been disclosed before the assessing authority,
as such amount had already been noticed by the assessing authority while making earlier assessment. It was also submitted that the assessee had
not disclosed the manner in which such income has been derived, the additional amount of income tax payable on such income and other
particulars is required for such disclosure. A vague statement alleged to have been made, such as ""in the course of business"". Learned Solicitor
General submitted that supplementary statement in Annexures II, III and III-A were filed for treating the same as part of the original application,
wherein further sum of Rs. 49,01,738/= has been added as an amount disallowed in respect of relief u/s 80HHC and, thus, vide revised Annexure
III, the amount of income, which is alleged to have not been disclosed was enhanced from Rs. 1,72,92,886/= to Rs. 2,21,94,624/=. According to
him, another additional application was filed on 7th Feb., 2005, which suggests that the amount as was originally disclosed in the application u/s
245C was not a full and true disclosure of the income of the assessee and, thus, the application should have been rejected instead of allowing the
same to be proceeded with.
Much reliance was placed on Section 245C and 245D(1) of IT Act and decisions of Supreme Court, which we intend to discuss in the later part
of this judgment.
A written submission has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner, Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Chennai, in W.P. No.19772/05,
wherein the following plea has been taken:
a) The writ petition has been preferred against the order of the Settlement Commission, primarily because there is a jurisdictional bar for the
commission to entertain the application that has not fulfilled the requirements of Section 245C and as there has been gross non-application of mind
by the commission on this issue.
b) The Department had been given only a copy of the application and not those of annexures, which gives details at the stage when the
Commissioner of Income Tax is asked for report. Therefore, the report is based largely on assessment order and on the issue of complexity of
investigation, the confidential annexures having remained with the Settlement Commission it is in a position to judge whether the basic condition of
full and true disclosure of income and manner of deriving the same have been made.
However, such submission cannot be accepted as u/s 245D(1), on receipt of the application u/s 245C, the Settlement Commission is only
supposed to call for a report from the Commissioner, but not supposed to forward any enclosure attached to the application u/s 245C nor
supposed to give hearing to the parties. This will be evident from the different procedure laid down u/s 245D.
c) According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-assessee had filed a settlement application disclosing theincome, largely treating the amount
shown as unsecured income. Believing the same to be a full and true disclosure, the first respondent has passed order u/s 245D(1). Thereafter, the
2nd respondent has filed further disclosure by offering the income which had been claimed as being export profits and on which deduction had
been claimed u/s 80 HHC. The very fact that further sum was offered makes the first disclosure neither full nor true.
d) The respondent had argued that in the first disclosure they had only offered the loans as income and in the 2nd disclosure it was giving up the
deduction claimed u/s 80 HHC and as such it cannot be said that the first disclosure was not full and true. Both the claims arise in the same
assessment order due to the same proceeding, i.e., there was only one appeal pending before the CIT (A), at which stage of the case the 2nd
respondent chose to file the settlement application. The claim that certain amounts were loan and not liable to be included in the income, and the
claim of deduction of export profits were both part of the same appeal. As such there can be only one disclosure and one application for
settlement, which should be full and true. If variations are made and further amounts added to the amount offered for settlement, regardless of the
reasons or the basis for the same, it would mean that the first application is certainly not full and even what is stated in it is not true.
e) In the annexures filed, the manner in which income was earned is stated as ""business income"". But from a plain reading of Annexure II that it
only sets out how there is complexity of investigation. There is no detail given as to how income now offered was earned by the assessee. The
assessing authority had clearly held that the credits were bogus and cash was deposited into the creditors account a day or two before issue of
cheques. The assessee had also offered the credits as income. Having done so, there is not even a whisper anywhere as to how exactly the money
was earned. What was disclosed before the assessing officer was the loan amount. If a fresh disclosure is to be made before the Settlement
Commission of something that was not disclosed to the assessing officer, as mandated by Section 245C, the assessee would be bound to disclose
the same as income, including the manner of deriving the same. Merelysaying the cash credits or amounts treated as loans in the return now offered
as income would not mean that the mannerof earning that income has been disclosed.
f) Further, according to the petitioner, the contention of the 2nd respondent that the issue of manner of deriving income has to be gone into only at
stage 2 of the Settlement Commissioner''s proceedings and cannot be questioned in the writ petition is untenable. The assumption of jurisdiction of
Settlement Commission will depend upon whether the assessee had come forward and filed an application containing the full and true disclosure of
his income not disclosed before the assessing officer, the manner in which such income had been derived, etc. Since this is a basic jurisdictional fact
and the annexures are available at that stage only with the Settlement commission, it is imperative that the Settlement Commission satisfies itself on
this point before proceeding further. The fact that the Settlement commission has not even noted this fact in its order shows total non-application of
mind.
According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-assessee, the impugned order has been passed after taking due note
of the statutory requirements. The Settlement Commission has considered the nature and circumstances of the case as also the complexity of the
investigation involved to hold that the cases are suitable for admission. It has noted inter alia that the matter would take several years to reach
finality in the usual channels apart from the fact that candid verification of 57 creditors involved complexity of investigation in addition to the fact
that no opportunity was given to the assessee for cross-examination of the creditors and as such the issue of determination of genuineness of the
credits in the case involves certain complexity of investigation.
According to Mr.Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel, there were statements recorded behind the back of the assessee. The Settlement
commission has given a specific conclusion that it is prima facie satisfied about the disclosure of income being full and true and, thus, the
commission has returned a tenable satisfaction on the jurisdictional facts/issues for further consideration.
So far as the argument on income not being undisclosed income is concerned, according to the learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent-
assessee, it is an afterthought and baseless. The income that form the subject matter of applications are additions made by the assessing officer to
the income of the answering respondent. These additions were not income disclosed by the assessee. While it was the case of the 2nd respondent
that they were loan transactions, the assessing officer erroneously held them to be unexplained/undisclosed income and added the same to the
income of the assessee. Thus, the consideration of transactions in the course of the assessment proceedings and the conclusion reached by the
assessing officer that they had to be treated as income of assessee, would not render the same as income disclosed before the assessing officer for
the purpose of application u/s 245C. According to him, the 2nd respondent had disclosed an income of Rs. 4,57,515/= in the original return,
whereas the returning officer computed the income to be Rs. 2.8 Crores. Thus, the argument that the component did not satisfy the requirement of
income being disclosed before the assessing officer is untenable. Further, according to him, the term undisclosed income is not defined under the
Act and, therefore, the expression ""income not disclosed before the assessing officer"" occurring u/s 245C(1) has to be given its ordinary and
common parlance meaning. Such an approach would also subserve the purpose of the statute, which is for buying quittance for the assessee
without being caught up by the adjudicatory process by the usual channel for years together and for accelerating recovery of taxes.
It was also contended that the aforesaid issue was not even raised before the Commission by the petitioner and advisedly so. The petitioner, in
respect of the settlement application, had given a report u/s 245D(1) on the various heads of income reflecting his knowledge of facts. The report
was only on the ground of complexity, but it was not opposed on the other ground. The argument made before the Settlement Commission at the
time of hearing also confirmed the position. It is only in the writ petition, for the first time, such contention is raised, that too, by placing heavy
reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. M/s. Express Newspaper Ltd., by
extracting portion from the judgment.
On the question of true and full disclosure and manner of deriving income, according to learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent, such
submission made on behalf of the petitioner should be rejected for the following reasons:
a) Undisputably there had been no amendment/revision of amounts, which had been mentioned in the application, to contend that the income
disclosed earlier is not true or full.
b)The contention premised mainly on the argument that further (supplementary) statements were made before the Commissioner in January, 2005
and February, 2005 is untenable. Incidentally, supplementary statement dated 19th Jan., 2005., was not preferred to or annexed with the writ
petition. The said statement is in respect of disallowance of relief u/s 80HHC of the Act. Importantly, the income under this head had been
squarely referred to in the application originally filed and had been objected by the revenue in its objection dated 9th Feb., 2005. However, since
amounts under this head had not been offered for additional tax while filing the application originally, and that it was advised that it could be
included in the application, the supplementary statement was submitted. Thus, it was in respect of another head of income, which was in dispute on
a technical score and was pending appeal. The 2nd respondent considered it appropriate to avoid protracted proceeding in the usual channels.
c) At any rate, such inclusion cannot strike at the validity of application as originally filed. Indeed a separate application could have been filed
subsequently under the same head, in view of the fact that the application could be made at any stage of a ""case"", this expression being a defined
term u/s 245A(b) of the Act.
d) The statement dated 7th Feb., 2005, was not any revision of the amounts mentioned in the original application, but is only an elaboration of the
facts in respect of loan transactions. The said statement should be considered and construed in the light of Rule 15 of the Settlement Commission
Rules, which envisages reliance upon further facts other than those contained in the settlement application at the time of consideration of the matter.
We have noticed the rival contentions as made onbehalf of the parties in W.P. No.19772/05 as also the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court, as referred by the parties.
The question of maintainability of application for settlement of a case u/s 245-C(1) fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. M/s. Express Newspaper Ltd., . That was a case in which the assessee filed its return for the year
1985-86 followed by revised return filed in February, 1988. It disclosed certain loss, however, the assessing officer assessed the income at higher
amount. The assessing officer held that the transaction of sale and purchase of certain articles from which the assessee claimed to have suffered
huge losses were not proved, but were bogus transactions, fabricated for the purpose of avoiding the legitimate tax due on its income. The appeal
preferred by the assessee was dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee approached the Settlement Commission in respect of
four assessment years, namely, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. On that date, the assessment relating to three later years were pending
before the assessing officer. The application of the Settlement Commission was made by the assessee under Form 34-B and under Column 10 the
assessee stated that the case involved substantial issues and amounts, that the transactions of the assessee were large and diverse and that the case
calls for judicial approach and appreciation of facts. In the said case, the assessed had not disclosed any income not disclosed before the assessing
officer, but merely offered a small part of losses claimed by it for the said assessment years to tax. In the said case, the Supreme Court, while
noticed Section 245C, held as follows:
Section 245C provides for filing of an application by an assessee for settlement of his case. Sub-section (1) says that an assessee may ""at any
stage of a case relating to him"" make an application in the prescribed form and manner, ""containing a full and true disclosure of his income which
has not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer , the manner in which such income has been derived, the additional amount of income tax
payable on such income and such other particulars as may be prescribed"" to settle his case. There are certain other requirements which he must
fulfil before making such an application but which it is not necessary to notice here.
For a proper delineation of the jurisdiction of the Commission, it is necessary to bear in mind the language of Sub-section (1) of Section 245C.
It provides that at any stage of a case relating to him, an assessee may make an application to the Commission disclosing fully and truly income
which has not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer. He must also disclose how the said income has been derived by him besides certain
other particulars. This means that an assessee cannot approach the Commission for settlement of his case with respect to income already disclosed
before the Assessing Officer. An application u/s 245C is maintainable only if it discloses income which has not been disclosed before the Assessing
Officer. The disclosure contemplated by Section 245C is thus in the nature of voluntary disclosure of concealed income. Unless the income so
disclosed exceeds Rs 50,000, the application u/s 245C is not maintainable. It is equally evident that once an application made u/s 245C is
admitted for consideration (after giving notice to and considering the report of the Commissioner of Income Tax as provided by Section 245-D)
the Commission shall have to withdraw the case relating to that assessment year (or years, as the case may be) from the
assessing/appellate/revising authority and deal with the case, as a whole, by itself. In other words, the proceedings before the Commission are not
confined to the income disclosed before it alone. Once his application is allowed to be proceeded with by the Commission, the proceedings
pending before any authority under the Act relating to that assessment year has to be transferred to Commission and the entire case for that
assessment year will be dealt with by the Commission itself. The words ""at any stage of a case relating to him"" only make it clear that the pendency
of proceedings relating to that assessment year, whether before the Assessing Officer or before the appellate or revisional authority, is no bar to the
filing of an application u/s 245C so long as the application complies with the requirements of Section 245C.
* * * * * * * *
The idea underlying the said words [in the main limb of Sub-section (1-A)] is self- evident. The disclosure u/s 245C must be of an income not
disclosed before the Assessing Officer. If the Assessing Officer (or the income tax authority) has already discovered it and has either gathered the
material to establish the particulars of such income or fraud fully or is at a stage of investigation/enquiries where the material gathered by him is
likely to establish the particulars of such income or fraud, the assessee cannot be allowed to defeat or forestall, as the case may be, the entire
exercise of the income tax authorities just by approaching the Commission. In such a case, it cannot be said that he is acting voluntarily or in good
faith. He should not be allowed to take advantage of the comparatively easy course of settlement. He must be allowed to face the normal channels
of assessment/appeal etc. Section 245C is meant for those assessees who seek to disclose income not disclosed before the Officer including ""the
manner in which such income has been derived"". If the department already knows and has gathered particulars of such income and the manner in
which it has been derived, there is no ''disclosure'' by the assessee. Let it be remembered that the words in question [in Section 245-D(1A)] are
not words of limitation nor are they meant to help unscrupulous assessees. Chapter XIX-A is a part of the Income Tax Act and must be construed
consistent with the overall scheme and object. The chapter is meant for those assessees who want to disclose income not disclosed till then
together with the manner in which the said income is derived. It is not meant for those who come after the event, i.e., after the discovery of the
particulars of income and its source - or discovery of particulars of fraud perpetrated by the assessee, as the case may be - nor even to those who
come to the Commission to forestall the investigation/inquiries which have reached a stage where the department is in possession of material which
though not sufficient to establish such concealment or fraud, is such that it is likely to establish it - maybe some more material is required to
establish it fully. The Commission has to keep all this in mind while deciding whether to allow the application to be proceeded before it or to reject
it.
Having taken into consideration the facts of the case and in the light of the legal position in the said case, the Supreme Court held that the
application filed by the said assessee before the Commission was not maintainable and could not have been allowed to be proceeded with. The
assessee had not disclosed in its application u/s 245C any income, which was not disclosed before the assessing officer. That was a case where
the assessee was claiming only certain losses.
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalpaiguri Vs. Om Prakash Mittal, , the said provision, Section 245C(1) again fell for consideration.
In the said case, an application u/s 245D(6) was filed by revenue for annulment of settlement order passed u/s 245D(4) on the ground of having
been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of the facts. While deciding the question of maintainability of such application, the following
observation was made by the Supreme Court:
...Sub-section (1) of Section 245C makes it clear that at any stage of a case relating to him, an assessee may make an application to the
Commission disclosing fully and truly his income which has not been disclosed before the assessing officer. To put it differently, an assessee cannot
approach the Commission for settlement of his case in respect of an income which has already been disclosed before the assessing officer. The
income disclosed as contemplated is in the nature of voluntary disclosure of income concerned.
* * * * * * * *
The Commission''s power of settlement has to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Though the Commission has
sufficient elbow room in assessing the income of the applicant, it cannot make any order with a term of settlement which would be in conflict with
the mandatory provisions of the Act, like in the quantum and payment of tax and the interest. The object of the legislature, in introducing Section
245C is to see that protracted proceedings before the authorities or in courts are avoided by resorting to settlement of cases. In this process an
assessee cannot expect any reduction in amounts statutorily payable under the Act.
* * * * * * * *
The foundation for settlement is an application which the assessee can file at any stage of a case relating to him in such form and in such manner
as is prescribed. The statutory mandate is that the application shall contain ""full and true disclosure"" of the income which has not been disclosed
before the assessing officer, the manner in which such income has been derived. The fundamental requirement of the application u/s 245C is that
full and true disclosure of the income has to be made, al ong with the manner in which such income was derived. On receipt of the application, the
Commission calls for report from the Commissioner and on the basis of the material contained in the report and having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the case or complexity of the investigation involved therein, it can either reject the application or allow the application to be
proceeded with as provided in Section 245D(1).
It has to be noted that the Commission exercises power in respect of income which was not disclosed before the authorities in any proceeding,
but is disclosed in the petition u/s 245C. It is not that any amount of undisclosed income can be brought to the notice of the Commission in the said
petition. The Commission exercises jurisdiction if the additional amount of tax on such undisclosed income is more than a particular figure (which at
different points of time exceeded rupees fifty thousand or rupees one hundred thousand, as the case may be). The assessee must have in addition
furnished the return of income which he is or was required to furnish under any of the provisions of the Act. In essence the requirement is that there
must be an income disclosed in a return furnished and undisclosed income disclosed to the Commission by a petition u/s 245C.
There is a purpose why the legislature has prescribed the condition relating to declaration of the order void when it is obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation of facts. It cannot be said that there has been a true and fair declaration of income which is the prerequisite for settlement by the
Commission. If an order is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts, it cannot be said that there was true and fair disclosure. It was noted
here that unlike Section 139 of the Act which provides for filing of revised return, there is no provision for revision of an application made in terms
of Section 245C. That shows clear legislative intent that the applicant for settlement has to make a true and fair declaration from the threshold. It is
on the basis of the application received that the Commission calls for report to decide whether the application is to be rejected or permitted to be
continued. The declaration contemplated in Section 245C is in the nature of voluntary disclosure of concealed income, but as noted above it must
be true and fair disclosure. Voluntary disclosure and making a full and true disclosure of the income are necessary preconditions for invoking the
Commission''s jurisdiction.
In the present case, the 2nd respondent-assessee had disclosed total income of Rs. 3,51,788/= in the return for the assessment year 1998-99,
which was revised to Rs. 4,57,522/=. Certain reliefs were also sought for u/s 80 HHC in respect of which assessment had been appealed against
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It has been accepted by the 2nd respondent assessee that a sum of Rs. 1,72,00,000/= for which
claim has been made were not the income disclosed by the assessee, but it has not been disputed on behalf of the assessee that the sum of Rs.
1,72,00,000/= was shown by the assessee as loans from creditors, but it was not accepted by the assessing officer, who included the aforesaid
amount to the income of the 2nd respondent-assessee. Apart from a plain reading of Section 245C, from the judgments of the Supreme Court as
referred to above, it will be evident that the disclosure under the said Section 245C must be of an income not disclosed before the assessing
officer. In the case of Express News Papers Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court observed that if the assessing officer of the income tax authority had
already discovered it or has either gathered materials to establish the particulars of such income, in such case it cannot be said that the assessee is
acting voluntarily or in good faith. Such assessee should not be allowed to take advantage of the comparatively easy course of settlement. He must
be allowed to face the normal channels of assessment/appeals, etc.
In view of the aforesaid provision and finding of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the 2nd respondent- assessee of W.P. No.19772/05
is not entitled to take advantage of Section 245C, the amount of Rs. 1,72,00,000/= having already been discovered by the assessing
authority/income tax authority and added to the total income of the assessee.
So far as the explanation given in respect of further applications filed in January, 2005 and February, 2005 are concerned, in view of our
aforesaid finding, it is not required to be deliberated. Similarly, the question whether the assessee had disclosed the manner in which such income
had been derived is also not required to be deliberated in the case of the 2nd respondent-assessee of W.P. No.19772/05.
So far as the rest of the cases are concerned, they were argued by the Assistant Solicitor General. However, he failed to highlight the
irregularity in any of the individual cases to suggest that the respective respondents assessees had disclosed the income now claiming to be not
disclosed before the assessing officer, but merely submitted that the settlement/claims u/s 245C have been made on the basis of income already
disclosed, which is incorrect. From bare perusal of record, as enclosed with the typed sets, in regard to individual cases, we find that the details
have been shown by other assesses, i.e., 2nd respondent to rest of the cases showing therein disclosure of additional income not disclosed before
the assessing officer. They have taken plea that such disclosure are full and true disclosure of their income. They have also shown the manner in
which such income has been derived.
In the case of the assessee, M/s.Sasi Enterprises, the 2nd respondent of W.P. No.23365/05, in the written statement has also taken plea that no
specific argument has been raised on the question of absence of full and true disclosure and/or absence of manner of deriving the income in the
settlement application, as such no case is made out. We agree with such submission as made on behalf of the 2nd respondent-assessee. Merely
because in one of the case, W.P. No.19772/05 detailed argument has been made to suggest non-application of mind, it will not render all other
orders passed by the same Settlement Commission as illegal.
We find no merit in the writ petitions, W.P. Nos.42178, 42179, 42180 and 42181/02, W.P. No.11671/04, W.P. No.25825/05 and W.P.
No.23365/05. So far as W.P. No.19772/05 is concerned, in view of our finding, the order dated 17th Feb., 2005, passed by the Settlement
Commission is set aside. The Settlement Commission is directed to reject the application preferred by the 2nd respondent- assessee of W.P.
No.19772/05 with further direction to decide the claim made by the 2nd respondent-assessee of W.P. Nos.42178, 42179, 42180 and 42181/02,
W.P. No.11671/04, W.P. No.25825/05 and W.P. No.23365/05 on an early date so that the matter may come to an end before the closure of
the current financial year. Accordingly, the writ petitions, W.P. Nos.42178, 42179, 42180 and 42181/02, W.P. No.11671/04, W.P.
No.25825/05 and W.P. No.23365/05 are dismissed and W.P. No.19772/05 is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. But in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.