Inasmuch as the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) constituted under the income-tax law is a tribunal within the meaning of articles 136 and 227 of the Constitution, the authority and its orders are amenable to writ jurisdiction, held the Supreme Court, in Columbia Sportswear Company vs. Director of Income Tax , Bangalore.

Outlining the AAR’s role, the apex court granted that its opinion was binding only on the applicant and the Department in relation to the applicant’s case. That said, it does not mean the AAR would easily and readily disown its own opinion in another case based on similar facts and circumstances.

That is why its opinions take on the character of order as well, and are hence amenable to writ jurisdiction.

On the facts of the case, though, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP), saying no matter of great importance sprung from the AAR’s order nor was a similar case pending before it so that the petitioner could be asked to join. That is to say, the case did not warrant a direct appeal from the Tribunal to the Supreme Court bypassing the High Court.

But the apex court made it clear that the petitioner could move the High Court with a writ petition if it felt there was some arbitrariness in the AAR ruling.

(The author is a New Delhi-based chartered accountant)

comment COMMENT NOW