Saturday, February 1, 2014

SC relies on ratio of Mitsubishi’s case that filing of return doesn’t attract bar on advance ruling; sets aside two orders

1)  The assessee, Sin Ocean Shipping ASA Norway, filed the instant SLP, seeking to set-aside the orders passed by AAR [GTB invest ASA, In re [2012] 18 262 (AAR- New Delhi)] and High Court [NETAPP B.V. v. AAR [2012] 24 174 (Delhi)];
2)  In case of GTB (Supra), applicant's application for advance ruling was rejected by the authority. In case of NETAPP (supra), the High Court dismissed assessee's writ. The writ was filed by petitioner to challenge the order of AAR which rejected its request for advance ruling;
3)  In both these cases it was held that that applicant was debarred from seeking advance ruling if return was filed prior to date of filing of application before the authority;
4)  The Supreme Court admitted the instant SLP on the basis of case of Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan, In re [2013] 40 335 (AAR- New Delhi);
5)  In case of Mitsubishi, the authority admitted the application of applicant, seeking advance ruling and it held that mere filing of return prior to filing of application of advance ruling does not attract bar on filing of application under Section 245R(2);

6)  Accordingly, orders of High Court and Authority, [i.e., order of GTB and NETAPP B.V] were set aside. Case of GTB was restored to authority, to give afresh ruling in accordance with law - Sin Oceanic Shipping ASA Norway v. Authority for Advance Rulings[2014] 41 444 (SC)