Assessee-firm is carrying out mining activities. A search and seizure operation was carried out at mines allotted to assessee and it was found that assessee had carried on excess mining and assessee had grossly suppressed actual quantity of production of manganese ore. Thereafter, revenue prepared a volumetric report through a private architect to demonstrate total volume of manganese ore extracted by assessee.  Assessee filed application under section 245C before Settlement Commission and disclosed unaccounted income and also paid taxes. However, Settlement Commission declared settlement application filed by asseseee as abated on account of it not being true and full disclosure of unaccounted income on basis of volumetric report  dismissed the settlement application. On writ the Court held that  private architect was merely qualified as bachelor in civil engineering  and he did not have basic qualification of a geologist. Moreover, stripping ratio was not calculated properly and, thus, there were fundamental errors in volumetric measurement report. Further, report submitted by private architect was also not scientific and authentic.  High Court held that since Settlement Commissioner dismissed statutory mining plan prepared under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and approved by IBM and even dismissed report prepared by state government and mining officer as per direction of High Court and merely relied on volumetric report prepared by private architect,  order passed by Settlement Commission  is quashed. High Court also held that writ petition against Survey report prepared by a private architect to determine total volume of manganese ore extracted by assessee during certain period.  Thereafter, assessee withdrew said petition and filed application before Settlement Commission.  Settlement Commission by an  order passed under section 245D(4) declared settlement application filed by assessee as abated on account of it not being true and full disclosure of unaccounted income on basis of volumetric report.  High Court by  held that Settlement Commission had erred in upholding survey report merely on basis of withdrawal of writ petition filed before High Court.  High Court also held that withdrawal of writ petition did not close any of rights of assessee to raise issue of illegality of survey report before Settlement Commission and, thus, by withdrawal of writ petition matter of challenge to volumetric measurement report could not become final. High Court  remanded  the matter to Settlement Commission.    SLP filed against  order of High Court  is  dismissed.