The Commissioner of Income-tax had challenged the final order passed by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) of the Act. The single judge set aside the orders of the Settlement Commission. On appeal  the Court held that  there was no allegation of bias or fraud or malice in the order of the Settlement Commission. It may be true that when the orders in question were passed by the Settlement Commission, the judgment of the Bombay High Court was not decided. But, a judicial decision acts retrospectively as held in Blackstonian theory. It is not the function of the court to pronounce a “new rule” but to maintain and expound the “old one”. Judges do not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. The law has always been the same. If a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, the later decision does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. Even where an earlier decision of a court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect, clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. The orders passed by the single judge was quashed and set aside.(AY. 1999-2000 to 2005-06 )