Seabird Exploration FZ LLC vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 and 2 Aaykar Bhawan, 13-A Subhash Road, Dehradun – 248001, Uttaakhand & others

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

Petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Authority of Advance Rulings, New Delhi.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Columbia Sportswear Company Vs. Director of Income-tax, Bangalore, has upheld the right of the

petitioner to file a writ petition before the High Court against a ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings, but it has also observed that the writ

petition should be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and should be decided as expeditiously as possible. The relevant portion of the

aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

“Therefore, to hold that an advance ruling of the authority should not be permitted to be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226

and/or 227 of the Constitution would be to negate a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Nonetheless, we do understand the apprehension of

the Authority that a writ petition may remain pending in the High Court for years, first before a learned Single Judge and thereafter in Letters Patent

Appeal before the Division Bench and as a result the object of Chapter XIX-B of the Act which is to enable an applicant to get an advance ruling in

respect of a transaction expeditiously would be defeated. We are, thus, of the opinion that when an advance ruling of the Authority is challenged

before the High Court under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, the same should be heard directly by a Division Bench of the High Court and

decided as expeditiously as possible.â€​

In view thereof, the Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders on the administrative side.

In case, the Hon’ble Chief Justice is not available today, the Registry is requested to place this matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice

tomorrow itself.