LexCOLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY versus DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 187 COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 31543 of 2011) JULY 30, 2012 [S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] A B Income Tax Act, 1961 - Chapter XIX-B; Sections 245N(a} and 245S - Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) - C Whether an advance ruling pronounced by the Authority can be challenged u!Article 2261227 of the Constitution before the High Court or u!Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court - Whether the Authority, if not a court, is a tribunal within the meaning of expression in Articles 136 and D 227 of the Constitution and whether the Authority has a duty to act judicially and is amenable to writs of Certiorari and Prohibition u!Article 226 of the Constitution - Held: The Authority is a body exercising judicial power conferred on it by Chapter XIX-B of the Act and is a tribunal within the E meaning of the expression in Articles 136 and 227 of the Constitution - Sub-section (1) of s.245S of the Act, insofar as, it makes the advance ruling of the Authority binding on the applicant, in respect of the transaction and on the Commissioner and income-tax authorities subordinate to F him, does not bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court u/Article 136 of the Constitution or the jurisdiction of the High Court ul Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to entertain a challenge to the advance ruling of the Authority - It cannot be held that an advance ruling of the Authority can only be G challenged u!Article 136 of the Constitution before Supreme Court and not u!Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution ?efore the High Court - However, when an advance ruling of he Authority is challenged before the High Court u!Articles 187 H 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, the same should be heard directly by a Division Bench of the High Court and decided expeditiously- Even if good grounds are made out in a SLP u!Article 136 for challenge to an advance ruling given by the Authority, the Supreme Court may still, in its discretion, refuse B to grant special leave on the ground that the challenge to the advance ruling of the authority can also be made to the High Court u!Artic/es 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution on the self same grounds - Unless, a SLP raises substantial questions of general importance or a similar question is already pending c before the Supreme Court for decision, the Supreme Court does not entertain a SLP directly against an order of the tribunal - The instant SLP neither raised any substantial question of general importance nor was it shown that a similar question was already pending before the Supreme Court for 0 which the petitioner should be permitted to approach the Supreme Court directly against the advance ruling of the Authority - Instant SLP accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate High Court u/Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution - High Court concerned to E ensure that the Writ Petition, if filed, is heard by the Division Bench hearing income-tax matters and is disposed of expeditiously - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 136, 226 and 227. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachil/hu and Others 1992 Supp (2) F SCC 651: 1992 (1) SCR 686; Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi and Others 1993 Supp (3) SCC 389: 1993 (2) SCR 938; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others (1997) 3 SCC 261: 1997 (2) SCR 1186 and Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Hyderabad AIR 1970 SC G 1520: 1971 (1) SCR 304 - relied on. H Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Others (1955) 1 SCR 267 and Union of India & Anr. v. Azadi Bachao Ando/an & Anr. (2003) 263 ITR 706 - referred to. COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY v. DIRECTOR 189 OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE Cyril Eugene Pereira, In re. (1999) 239 ITR 650 and A Groupe Industrial Marcel Dassault, In re (2012) 340 ITR 353 (AAR) - referred to. "Constitutional Law of India" (Fourth Edition) by H.M. Seervai - referred to. B Words and Phrases - Expression "tribunal" - Meaning of - Held: The test for determining whether a body is a tribunal or not is to find out whether it is vested with the judicial power of the State by any law to pronounce upon rights or liabilities arising out of some special law. C Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sunder AIR 1961 S.C. 1669: 1962 SCR 339; Jaswant Sug
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.