Is judicial review of a Settlement Commission order limited to contravention of the Act, prejudice to the assessee, bias, fraud or malice?

Paragraph 17We refer to the precedents before considering the question at hand. In Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi (supra), this Court considered the scope of judicial review of the Settlement Commission’s Orders. The assessee challenged the ITSC Order on the assessability of income derived from five foreign trusts established by the assessee’s father. This Court examined whether the United States Trusts were revocable transfers under Section 63 of the Act, 1961, and whether the Revenue could tax beneficiaries directly on income “received” from discretionary Trusts; and upheld the Settlement Commission's decision to tax Trust income in the settlor’s hands during his lifetime and thereafter in the beneficiary-assessee’s hands, emphasising the limited scope of judicial review under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the Settlement Commission's Order. The observations on the scope of judicial review against the Settlement Commission Orders are as follows: A. The finality clause in Section 245-I of the Act, 1961 does not, and cannot, bar the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the Supreme Court's under Articles 32/136 of the Constitution of India. B. The scope of judicial review of the Settlement Commission is strictly limited to examining whether the Commission's Order is contrary to any provision of the Act, 1961, and whether any such contravention has prejudiced the assessee. C. Interference by the Court is also permissible on independent grounds of bias, fraud, or malice. D. In this context, judicial review under Article 136 concerns the decisionmaking process, not the merits of the ITSC’s Settlement Order. E. An incorrect interpretation of a Settlement or Trust Deed by the Commission does not violate the provisions of the Act, 1961, and therefore cannot be a valid ground for interference.