New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (3) TMI 805 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2015 (3) TMI 805 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - TMI - Application of advance ruling dismissed for non-prosecution - also application for restoration has been rejected - Held that:- Orders dated 16.01.2014 and 30.04.2014 deserve to be set aside. Firstly, the order dated 16.01.2014 is an order simply dismissing the application of the petitioner for non-prosecution, whereas Rule 17 of The Rules 1996, permits the Authority to decide the matter exparte on merits. Further, no adequate reason for rejecting t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d by him. In the second affidavit, it was stated that though the said notice may have been delivered but it was misplaced and never brought to the notice of the applicant. The said averments cannot be termed as contradictory statements because the consistent stand of the applicant was that the notice was never within the knowledge of the applicant. In a case like this, where a party seeks Advanced Ruling, under the provision of the Income Tax Act, from the Authority to find out as to whether cer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

devan, Adv. For The Respondent : K.V. Aravind, Adv. ORDER Vineet Saran, J. - By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax) New Delhi, whereby the application has been dismissed for non-prosecution and also the order dated 30.04.2014, whereby the application for restoration has been rejected. 2. We have heard Ms.Mehtab, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ondent-Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax), New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for brevity) seeking a ruling on the applicability of withholding tax provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to one-time premium paid by the petitioner-Company to the Telecom Operator in Brazil. The said application was admitted by the Authority on 17.10.2011, which according to the petitioner, was after hearing the parties. 4. According to the petitioner, several hearings .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the date fixed i.e., on 16.01.2014. The said application was filed within the stipulated period provided under the proviso to Rule 17 of the Authority For Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1996' for brevity). When the said application was taken up for hearing, it appears that the Counsel for the applicant was faced with the receipt of service on the counsel by which, intimation was given for the date fixed by the Authority as 16.01.2014. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of hearing. The Authority then, vide its order dated 30.04.2014, rejected the restoration application merely on the ground that the statements made by the applicant-writ petitioner in the two affidavits were contradictory. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Rule 17 of The Rules, 1996, even if the applicant-writ petitioner had not appeared before the Authority on the date fixed for hearing, the option for the Authority was to decide the case exparte on merits an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution vide order dated 16.01.2014 was justified, as the applicant did not appear before the Authority on the said date. He has also submitted that while passing the order dated 30.04.2014, the Authority had considered the two affidavits filed by the applicant-writ petitioner before the Authority and perusal of the two affidavits would go to show that there was contradiction and as such, even .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

whereas Rule 17 of The Rules 1996, permits the Authority to decide the matter exparte on merits. Further, no adequate reason for rejecting the application for restoration has been given in the order dated 30.04.20214. Merely by saying that the averments made in the two affidavits are contradictory would not be sufficient. The Authority ought to have specified as to what was the contradiction in the two affidavits and why the same was not acceptable. 8. After having gone through the two affidavit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version