JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. These petitions arise in common background. Facts may be noted from Special Civil Application No. 7814 of 2014. 2. The petitioner-Income Tax Officer has challenged an order dated 11.08.2000 passed by the Settlement Commission in following background: 3. The respondent had approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of its case. Such proceedings came to be disposed of by the Settlement Commission by an order dated 11.08.2000. In such order, the Settlement Commission granted waiver of interest on the tax payable by the assessee as under: "22. A request has been made for waiver of interest chargeable u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act in both the cases. In the case of Kakadia Builders P. Ltd. returns for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 were due after the date of search. Considering the same, the interest chargeable for nine out of twelve months delay in 1994-95 is waived. Interest u/s. 234A for 1995-96 is chargeable for three months only which shall be charged as per law. In the facts of the case, interest u/s. 234A for 1992-93 and 1993-94 is waived to the extent of 50%. Interest chargeable u/s. 234B for all the four years will be reduced by 50%. Regarding Shri Manharlal M. Kakadia, interest u/s. 234A for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 will be charged for eighteen and six months respectively. The balance interest is waived. Interest u/s. 234A for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 will be charged as per law. Interest u/s. 234B will be reduced by 50% of the chargeable amount in all the four years under settlement. Interest u/s. 234C in both the cases will be charged as per law." 4. It appears that the department as well as the assessee both moved applications for rectification of such order of the Settlement Commission. Both sides had dispute about waiver or non-waiver of interest granted by the Settlement Commission in its order of settlement. The department argued that, by virtue of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Ors. reported in 252 ITR 1, the Settlement Commission could not have waived interest as was done in the said order. The assessee requested for further waiver of interest. The department argued that, by virtue of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Ors. reported in 252 ITR 1, the Settlement Commission could not have waived interest as was done in the said order. The assessee requested for further waiver of interest. The Settlement Commission, by an order dated 17.10.2002, allowed the application of the department partially and rejected that of the assessee. The Commission was of the opinion that by virtue of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Ors. (supra), waiver of interest could be granted only in terms of CBDT's circular dated 23.05.1996. The Commission, therefore, provided as under: "3. We have examined the issue. There is no doubt that after the Supreme Court's judgment in Ghaswala's case, the law of the land is that the Commission's powers to waive interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is circumscribed to the extent set out in CBDT's Notification dated 23.05.1996 issued from F. No. 400/234/954-IT(B). That being the case, any other variation would fall to be a mistake apparent from the record. We notice that in the case of the company, the Commission has taken into account the fact that the returns for A.Y. 1994-95 and 1995-96 fell due after the search. After taking into account this fact, interest chargeable under Section 234A of the Act has been waived for 9 months for A.Y. 1994-95 only. The waiver, in terms, falls squarely within the parameters of clause (a) of Board's Notification of May 1996, there being seizure of voluminous documents and books of account. Therefore, there is no need to amend the waiver of interest as far as both the applicants are concerned for A.Y. 1994-95. Waiver of interest chargeable under Section 234A as far as the company is concerned, for assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 against would be withdrawn as the search has taken place subsequently." 5. The assessees had challenged this order of the Commission by filing two petitions viz. Special Civil Application No. 15097 of 2004 and 15101 of 2004. These petitions came to be disposed of by a common judgment dated 03.03.2014. The assessees had challenged this order of the Commission by filing two petitions viz. Special Civil Application No. 15097 of 2004 and 15101 of 2004. These petitions came to be disposed of by a common judgment dated 03.03.2014. The only contention which was pressed in service and also accepted by the Court was that as declared by the Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 328 ITR 477, the Settlement Commission had no power of rectification. The Court, therefore, allowed the petitions and set aside the order of the Settlement Commission passed in rectification application filed by the department by making following observations: "3. It could thus be seen that the Commission Settlement modified its direction with respect to charging of interest exercising powers of rectification. The Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 328 ITR 477 (SC) held that the Settlement Commission had no power of rectification. 4. In that view of the matter, on this short group the impugned order is required to be set aside. We clarify that we do not express any opinion on the Revenue's contention which finds favour with the Settlement Commission that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Ors. (supra), no portion of interest liability of the assessee could have been waived or reduced by the Commission. If the Revenue was aggrieved by such order of the Settlement Commission it ought to have challenged the same in accordance with law. In any case, application for rectification was not maintainable as the statute stood at the relevant time as interpreted by the Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). 5. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 11.10.2002 is quashed leaving it open to the Revenue to follow its remedies against the original order of the Settlement Commission." 6. The department, thereupon, filed the present petitions in which, as noted above, it has challenged the original order of the Settlement Commission dated 11.08.2000 insofar as it pertains to waiver of interest. 7. We have heard counsel for both sides. The department, thereupon, filed the present petitions in which, as noted above, it has challenged the original order of the Settlement Commission dated 11.08.2000 insofar as it pertains to waiver of interest. 7. We have heard counsel for both sides. We gather that there is no serious dispute about the fact that by virtue of judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Ors. (supra), the waiver of interest granted by the Commission in its original order dated 11.08.2000 was not quite proper. In fact, Mr. Shah candidly stated that the contents of the order passed by the Settlement Commission on 17.10.2002 would be in consonance with the judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Ors. (supra) except for adding a rider that, as clarified by the Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Commission could levy interest only upto the stage of passing order under Section 245B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not beyond. In other words, therefore, if any such interest was charged, the same was not permissible. He, however, strongly opposed the petitions on the ground of delay and laches. He would contend that the department has filed these petitions in the year 2014 challenging the order of Settlement Commission passed way back on 11.08.2000. There is thus gross and inordinate delay of 14 years in filing the writ petitions. Primarily on this ground, he opposed the petitions. 8. If we peruse the facts minutely it would immediately emerge that there is no delay on part of the department in filing petition. We may recall, after the Commission passed the order of settlement on 11.08.2000 both sides i.e. the department as well as the assessees filed respective applications for rectification. By an order dated 11.10.2016, the Settlement Commissioner allowed the rectification application of the department partially and rejected that of the assessees. This order was challenged by the assesses by filing Special Civil Applications No. 15097 of 2004 and 15101 of 2004. We may also record that the department to the extent rectification application was rejected by the Settlement Commission did not carry the issue any further. 9. This order was challenged by the assesses by filing Special Civil Applications No. 15097 of 2004 and 15101 of 2004. We may also record that the department to the extent rectification application was rejected by the Settlement Commission did not carry the issue any further. 9. The High Court allowed the petitions of the assesses by a judgment dated 03.03.2014 on the limited ground that as declared by the Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) the Settlement Commission had no power of rectification. While doing so, the Court also observed that the impugned order is quashed leaving it open to the Revenue to avail its remedy against the original order of Settlement Commission. It was thereupon that these petitions came to be filed on or around 22.04.2014. 10. Above noted chain of events would reveal that the Settlement Commission having accepted substantially the application of the rectification filed by the department in the year 2002, the department had no cause or grievance against the rectified order of the Settlement Commission. Once the Settlement Commission accepted the rectification prayer of the department, there was no order adverse to the department which could have been challenged. It was only by virtue of the High Court judgment dated 03.03.2014 that such order of the rectification came to be set aside thereby reviving the original un-rectified order of the Settlement Commission dated 11.08.2000. The very right of the department to challenge the order of Settlement Commission therefore arose after 03.03.2014 by virtue of the judgment of the High Court. Till then, the department had no cause to feel aggrieved by the order of Settlement Commission. If there was no order adverse to the department, the department could not have challenged the same. Soon after the High Court passed the said order dated 03.03.2014, the department filed the present petitions. 11. Looked from such angle, we do not find any delay or laches on part of the department in moving these petitions. Delay, if any, is duly explained. Had the department delayed filing these petitions after the High Court reversed the rectification order of the Settlement Commission by the judgment dated 03.03.2014, we would have certainly considered the opposition of the assessees. 12. Delay, if any, is duly explained. Had the department delayed filing these petitions after the High Court reversed the rectification order of the Settlement Commission by the judgment dated 03.03.2014, we would have certainly considered the opposition of the assessees. 12. Having said that, we must clarify that to the extent, the Settlement Commission in the order of rectification had turned down the prayers of the department, such issue cannot be re-agitated in the present petitions. In other words, the department not having challenged the order dated 11.10.2002 by which the rectification application of the department came to be partially disallowed, it cannot now reopen the same question after long gap of time in the present petitions, taking cue from the observations made by the High Court in the said judgment dated 03.03.2014. 13. Under the circumstances, we direct modification of the order of Settlement Commission dated 11.08.2000 by reversing the waiver of interest in terms of Settlement Commission's directions contained in its order dated 11.10.2002. In other words, we adopt the same directions for modification of the Settlement Commission's original order dated 11.08.2000. 14. It is undisputed position that as held by the Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the Settlement Commission could have charged interest only upto the stage of passing order under Section 245D(1) of the Act. If the Settlement Commission had directed levy of such interest post the stage of Section 245D(1) in its order dated 11.08.2000, we clarify that beyond the said stage no interest shall be collected from the assesses. We are conscious that the assessees had not challenged such directions of the Settlement Commission. However, when we are reopening the issues of interest arising out of the Settlement Commission's order passed way back in the year 2000, in equity and larger interest of justice, we would be failing in our duty if we did not also clarify and provide that such interest would be levied only as permitted and declared by the Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). 15. Both petitions are disposed of accordingly.