Expro Gulf Limited V. Union of India

WPMS/2871/2014

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by Expro Gulf Limited against the Union of India and others, challenging a notification that declared Cyprus as a notified jurisdictional area for tax purposes. The petitioner argued that this designation was incorrect based on an international treaty between India and Cyprus, which mandates the exchange of tax-related information. The government contended that Cyprus had not been cooperative in providing the necessary information. The court decided to dismiss the petitions, finding no merit in the claims that Cyprus was cooperative and willing to supply the requested information, and also noted the availability of an alternative statutory appeal against the revised tax certificate issued.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800667 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAKESH THAPLIYAL; HARI MOHAN BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA; P R MULLICK
• Keywords: Income Tax; Jurisdictional Area; Revised Certificate; International treaty; Information exchange
• Section: 154; 94(a)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2871 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......….Respondents With Writ Petition No. 2882 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......….Respondents With Writ Petition No. 2881 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......….Respondents With Writ Petition No. 2877 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......….Respondents With Writ Petition No. 2872 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......….Respondents 2 And Writ Petition No. 2873 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......….Respondents Present: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Asst. Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent no. 1. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for Income Tax Department/ respondent nos. 2 & 3. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Since, in all these writ petitions identical questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the writ petition are taken up together for hearing and are being decided by this common judgment. By way of present petitions, the petitioner is assailing the notification dated 1.11.2013, Annexure-A to the writ petition), mainly on the ground that “Cyprus” ought not to have been declared as notified jurisdictional area in view of international treaty between Government of India and Government of Cyprus. It is argued by Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per Article 28 of the Treaty, the Contracting States are bound to exchange such information (including documents) as is necessary for carrying out the provisions of the Agreement or of the domestic laws of the Contracting States concerning taxes covered by the Agreement. Learned Senior Counsel 3 appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the very basis of issuing the impugned notification dated 1.11.2013 that Government of Cyprus is not cooperating with the Government of India and, despite several requests, not supplying the information sought by the authorities of Government of India, on the face of it, is wrong in view of the Press Release made by the Cyprus Authorities that they have never denied any information and they had been ready and willing to supply the information sought by the Government of India. Bare perusal of the notification dated 1.11.2013 would reveal that Cyprus has not been providing the information as requested by the Indian Authorities under the provisions of Exchange of Information Agreement, therefore, Government of India has decided to notify Cyprus as notified jurisdictional area under Section 94-A of the Income Tax Act. While exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily should not proceed to look into as to whether informations sought by the Indian Authorities were ever declined by the Government of Cyprus or Government of Cyprus is ready and willing to supply the informations sought by the Indian Authorities. Moreover, there seems to be no valid reason to disbelieve the satisfaction so recorded by the Indian Authorities. Consequently, petitions fail for relief No. (a). In the present writ petitions, petitioner is also challenging revised certificate dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Income Tax Authorities. Undisputedly, Income Tax Authorities are competent under Section 154 of the 4 Income Tax Act to revise earlier orders passed, even suo moto, if any illegality or irregularity is observed therein, at the subsequent stage. Undisputedly, all orders passed under Section 154 of the Act can be assailed in statutory appeals. Since, alternative remedy of statutory appeal is available to the petitioner to challenge the revised certificate dated 12.12.2014, therefore, I am not inclined to invoke my writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that appellate forum shall be approached within ten days from today. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department/respondent nos. 2 & 3, submits that in case appeals are preferred against the revised certificates, same shall be disposed of in accordance with law without any undue delay. Consequently, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. All the CLMAs also stand disposed of accordingly. Let copy of this judgment be kept in all the connected writ petitions. (Alok Singh, J.) 22.1.2015 Avneet/ "