Single judge allowed the writ petition of the revenue. On appeal allowing the appeal the Court held that the findings rendered by the Settlement Commission was not a concession extended by the Commissioner (Departmental representative), but in fact, accepting the verification report which was submitted. Therefore, the Department, on a wrong premise that the Settlement Commission had recorded that a concession was given, had filed a writ petition which was unnecessary, as the Commission had not recorded any concession, but taken up the matter, considered the case of the assessee as well as the Department, and settled the case based upon the increased offer made by the assessee. On a cumulative reading of the order, it was clear that one of the disputes which was subject matter of the settlement proceedings was unaccounted excess stock. On account of the stand taken by the Department as well as the assessee the Commission had directed verification of the data from the impounded computer server. There was no procedural error committed by the Settlement Commission, warranting interference by the court. The order of the Settlement Commission was not to be construed as a concession given by the Commissioner (Departmental representative), but a finding rendered by the Commission with regard to the verification of the data from the impounded computer server. Therefore, when there was no procedural irregularity the order of the Settlement Commission, which had attained finality and given effect, it need not be interfered with. The order allowing the writ petition filed by the Department was set aside.