Court held that  the grounds raised by the Revenue, in the writ petitions, were the same grounds, which were raised in the report filed under rule 9 of the Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997, and were the subject matter of consideration by the Settlement Commission and by a detailed speaking order the Settlement Commission considered the objections of the Revenue in the report and recorded reasons why the case was required to be settled. In more than one place, the Settlement Commission had recorded that the applications filed by the assessees contained full and true disclosure. There was no allegation that the Revenue did not have adequate opportunity to place the materials before the Settlement Commission. The judge in his order had not recorded any finding that the Settlement Commission contravened the provisions of the Act nor was there any finding supported by material that the common order passed by the Settlement Commission suffered from patent illegality. In such circumstances, the common order passed by the Settlement Commission ought not to have been interfered with and that too, after a long delay. The matter was allowed to rest and the assessees’ case was settled and they paid taxes and the seized jewellery was returned to the assessees. The order of the single judge was liable to be quashed. (AY. 2006-07 to 2012-13)