Uttarakhand HC denies quashing of notification that blacklisted Cyprus for not sharing tax information

The Government had specified ‘Cyprus’ as notified jurisdictional area' for the purposes of the section 94A via NOTIFICATION NO.86/2013 as it was not providing information sought for by Indian Tax authorities. The instant petition was filed to quash such notification on the ground that "Cyprus" ought not have been declared as notified jurisdictional area as they had never denied any information and they had been ready and willing to supply the information sought for by the Indian Government. The High Court denied quashing of said notification.

Facts:

The instant petition was filed to quash the Notification no. 86/2013, on the ground that "Cyprus" ought not have been declared as notified jurisdictional area as Cyprus have never denied any information and they had been ready and willing to supply the information sought by the Government of India.

The High Court denied to quash the notification and made following observations:

1)Bare perusal of the notification would reveal that Cyprus had not been providing the information as requested by the Indian Authorities under the provisions of Exchange of Information Agreement, therefore, Government of India had decided to notify Cyprus as notified jurisdictional area under Section 94-A.

2)While exercising the writ jurisdiction ordinarily Court should not proceed to look into whether information sought by the Indian Authorities was declined by the Government of Cyprus or whether the Government of Cyprus was ready and willing to supply the information sought for by the Indian Authorities. Moreover, there seemed to be no valid reason to disbelieve the satisfaction so recorded by the Indian Authorities.

3)Thus, relief sought for by petitioner could not be granted. - EXPRO GULF LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA [2015] 53 taxmann.com 413 (Uttarakhand)