9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s far as the applicants are concerned, the transactions on which they have sought rulings are proposed transactions and no proceeding against them was pending before any Officer, Appellate Tribunal or any Court. 2. On behalf of the department, objection to maintainability of the applications and the entertainability of the applications are raised. It is contended that the applicants, being subsidiaries of a subsidiary of a Government company, are ineligible to apply for advance ruling. It is also contended that the questions, identical to the ones sought to be raised by the applicants, are pending before the Customs, Excise, Service-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the company of which the applicants are subsidiaries and in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same meaning as is assigned to it in clause 36A of Section 2 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)". Section 2 (36A) of the Income-tax Act, in turn, defines: "a public sector company as meaning any corporation established by or under any Central, State or Provincial Act or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)." Section 617 of the Companies Act provides, "For the purpose of this Act, Government company means any company in which not less than 51% of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government or by any State Government or Governments, or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments and includes a company which is a subsidiary of a Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was identical to the one that is sought to be raised by the applicants before this Authority and if the contention of the applicants is accepted, it will lead to an incongruous situation and possibly a conflict of decisions on the identical question and such a situation is obviously to be avoided. 7. For the purpose of these applications, we do not think that it is necessary to finally adjudicate on the question whether a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a Government company, could invoke the jurisdiction of this Authority for advance ruling or not. We prefer to rest our decision on the discretion we have under section 96D(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 to allow or disallow an application for an ultimate ruling under section 96D(4) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on proper lines. Avoiding abuse of legal process, incompatible decisions concerning the same parties and anomalous situations are relevant considerations that guide the exercise of discretionary power to reject the application. For instance, in spite of a direct decision of the Supreme Court settling the point against an applicant, if the applicant seeks advance ruling with a view to stall further proceedings, it may then be a fit case to reject the application at the stage of consideration under section 245R(2). Another instance that can be visualized is in a case where the applicant raises frivolous or hypothetical legal issues without factual foundation. 8. In this case, admittedly, the questions sought to be raised before us are pendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
