Allowing the petition the Court held that Madras High Court in Jain Metal Rolling Mills vs. Union of India (2023) 335 CTR 761 /  232 DTR  331 (Mad) (HC))  has held that the eligibility condition in the impugned notification dt. 28th Sept., 2021 issued under S 119(2)(b) should be read as 31st March, 2021 and not 31st Jan., 2021 as the Finance Act, 2021 was notified, w.e.f. 1st April, 2021, and, therefore, the eligibility of an assessee is to be considered from the immediately preceding date. In view of the decision of the Madras High Court, the impugned notice/order dt. 16th Sept., 2021, passed by respondent No. 1 holding assessee’s application as invalid and bad in law is clearly not sustainable. That apart, retrospective legislation cannot affect the vested rights.  When the Department has extended the last date from 1st Feb., 2021 to 30th Sept., 2021, it can only extend the deadline but cannot introduce a new concept of eligibility as on 1st Feb., 2021 which is not there in the Act itself. Though the CBDT relaxed the rigours of the provisions of the Act for the benefit of assessees, it is not open to the CBDT to put in new rigours or impediments to the rights of an assessee in a press release or a notification which is contrary to the provisions of the Act-Sub-s. (5) of S. 245C, even though inserted with retrospective effect from 1st Feb., 2021, can be given effect to only after the date when the assent of the President of India was received to promulgate the Finance Act, 2021.  Assessee had already made the application on 18th March, 2021 when sub-s. (5) of s. 245C was not in the statute and hence, assessee had made the valid application as per the provisions of the Act. Purport of sub-S. (5) is not to make an application already filed after 1st Feb., 2021 as invalid but it should be read as no application shall be made after 1st Feb., 2021 once the assent of the President of India has been received.  But before receipt of the assent any application made by an assessee will not be hit by sub-s. (5) of S. 245C. That apart, if the notice under S. 153A would have been issued on or before 31st Jan., 2021, assessee would have been eligible to make an application. Therefore, when the eligibility is dependent on the action of respondent No. 1 to issue a notice and when respondent No. 1 issues a notice after inordinate delay from the search, respondent No. 1 should not be entitled to claim that assessee has lost its right to approach the Settlement Commission on account of such delayed action of respondent No. 1 itself. Followed,  New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2024) 337 CTR  257 / 235 DTR 113/ 158 taxmann.com 367(Bom)(HC) and Group M. Media India (P) Ltd. v. UOI  (2016) 289 CTR  622/142 DTR 267 / 77 taxmann.com 106.(Bom)(HC) Jain Metal Rolling Mills v. UOI (2023) 335 CTR 761 / 232 DTR  331(Mad)(HC) (AY.  2014-15 to 2020-21)