Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 856 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTJurisdiction of Authority for Advance Ruling - Refusal to give ruling on final hearing - Whether there was any contravention of SEBI guidelines - Held that:- Authority has proceeded to refuse to give a ruling on the basis that the petitioner had contravened the SEBI Guidelines - agreement entered into in 2004 between TIL and AT&T was not acted upon due to commercial reasons and that the Draft Prospectus filed with SEBI in 2006 while coming out with the IPO had disclosed the agreement entered into by it with AT&T. From the above, it is clear that on examination of the facts of the Petitioner's case SEBI has concluded that there has been no breach of SEBI guidelines. In case there had been any breach of its guidelines and/or an illegal act as suggested by the Authority in its impugned order, SEBI would have issued to the petitioner a notice to show cause - Decided in favour of petitioner. Refusal to pass ruling - whether the Authority after having admitted the questions can refuse to give a ruling on the question of law formulated at the final hearing without there being any change in facts or circumstances - Held that:- Authority has a discretion to refuse to give a ruling on a question of law even in respect of matters outside the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act, yet this discretion of refusing to rule on a question cannot be arbitrary. The Authority can exercise its discretion not to give a ruling only in cases where fraud and/or illegality is ex facie evident or the fraud or illegality has been established in some proceedings. Such a discretion is not to be exercised on a mere suspicion of illegality or fraud having taken place - Authority is not correct in refusing to give a ruling at the time of final hearing in the absence of any fresh material, merely on the basis of the suspicion. The Authority may be entitled to consider questions of public interest and not answer the questions when the foundation of the transaction is on the face of it coloured by illegality/or mis-representation of facts in making the application to the Authority - Decided in favour of Petitioner.
|