- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D -

Page | i

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................VII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................X
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS.......................................................XI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES..................................................XII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...........................................XIV
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................1
MAINTAINABILITY...........................................................................1
A.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the High Court. .1

B. Whether the alternate remedies were exhausted before approaching

the High Court?.........................................................................................1
C.

Whether the DDIT had powers to issue SCN to the assessee?..........2

CONSTITUTIONALITY
A.

AND INCOME

TAX.................................................2

Whether the GAAR provision and income deemed to accrue in India

provision of the Code have violated the Constitution, settled tax treaties
and territorial limits of India......................................................................2
B. Whether international treaty obligations under the constitution have
been flouted merely on the fact that India is not a signatory to the
Vienna convention?...................................................................................6
C.

Whether the Code being a law later in time would prevail over

DTAA. Scope of such doctrine?..................................................................8

D.

Can legislation unilaterally tax a transaction happening exclusively

out of India between two nonresidents?..................................................11

OTHER ISSUES............................................................................. 13
A.

Whether SPA-II was a sham and purely to treaty shop....................13

B. Who is the beneficial owner in the transaction?.................................14

C.

Did the DDIT commit per incuriam by not following the settled

judgments of this Court?.........................................................................15

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D -

Page | ii

PRAYER.......................................................................XVI

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D -

Page | iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. TABLE

OF

CASES

1. Ajay Kumar Banerjee and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1984)ILLJ368SC......................10
2. Anglo-French Textile Company Ltd. v CIT 25 ITR 27 (SC)....................................................5
3. Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 232........................................................5
4. Augusto De Piedade Barreto v. Antonio Vicente Da Fonseca and Ors. etc. [1979]3SCR494 10
5. Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. St of Rajasthan AIR 1962 SC 1406........................5
6. Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1336............................................................2
7. Brahmananda v Gajapathinath (58 ITR 579)...........................................................................1
8. Chairman,Railway Board v. Chandrama Das AIR 2000 998...................................................3
9. CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust 144 ITR 146.......................................................................6
10. Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995).......................................4
11. Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University AIR 1989 SC 903..............................................................2
12. Dwijendralal v. New Central Jute 112 ITR 568........................................................................1
13. E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr 1974 AIR 555....................................................2
14. Eileen Louise Nicoole v. John Winter Nicolle, [1992] 1 AC 284.............................................10
15. Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services AIR 1997 SC 3801................................3
16. Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v Iceland) [1974] I.C.J. Reports 3............................7
17. Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines Ltd (1981) AC 251...................................................................7
18. Francis Corallie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of India, (1981) 2 SCR 516...4
19. Govt. of A.P. v. B. Satyanarayana Rao, (2000)IILLJ545SC...................................................15
20. GVK Inds. Ltd. and Anr. v. The Income Tax Officer and Anr. (2011)4SCC36.....................5,12
21. Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., [2003] 2 SCC 107..................................1
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D -

Page | iv

22. Hira Mills Ltd. v ITO 14 ITR 417 (All)....................................................................................5

23. In re Berubari Union, AIR 1960 SC 845...................................................................................9
24. In re Special Courts Bill,1978,AIR 1979 SC 478......................................................................3
25. IR v. Hood Barrs 39 TC 683 HL................................................................................................1
26. Jalia Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1975 SC 1436.................................................................3
27. K. Thimnappa v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, AIR 2001, SC 467...........................3
28. Kesavananda Bharthi v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461....................................................6
29. King v. Brixton IT Comrs 6 TC 195..........................................................................................1
30. L&T Case Equipment Pvt. Limited v. State of Karnataka ILR2009KAR3072.........................4
31. L. Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly AIR (1971) SC 33.......................................1
32. Madhu Kishwar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1996 SC 1864........................7
33. Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 784..........................................8
34. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dey and Ors.,[1966]3SCR663.......10
35. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248...............................................................3
36. Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay SC 325...........................................................................4
37. Mohd. Yasin Vs. Town Area Committee AIR 1952 SC 115........................................................1
38. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666...............................................................4
39. Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 121....................................2
40. Naraindas v. State of M.P. AIR 1974 SC 1232..........................................................................4
41. Naranjan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 106...............................................................4
42. P.M. Ashwathanarayana v. State of Karnataka AIR 1989 SC 100...........................................7
43. Parkar v. Palekar 94 ITR 616...................................................................................................1
44. Parkash Singh Badal and Anr.v. State of Punjab and Ors.(2007)1SCC.................................15

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D -

Page | v

45. R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka and another, (1992)1SCC335.....................................10

46. Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 176 of 2009........7
47. Ram Narayan Singh v. Delhi AIR 1953 SC 272........................................................................4
48. Rattan Arya v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1986 SC 1444............................................................2
49. RMDC v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628.............................................................................2
50. Sakalchand Babulal v ITO 47 ITR 673 (Mad)........................................................................5
51. Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877.......................................................3
52. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v. Gamlen Chemical Co (A/Asia) Pty Ltd (1980) 147 CLR
142.............................................................................................................................................7
53. Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. (2007) 120 Comp. Cases 467..2
54. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 3856.....................1
55. State of UP v Bahadur Singh 142 ITR 745................................................................................1
56. Sudhir Chandra v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. AIR 1984 SC 1604.........................................4
57. Sultana Begum v. Premchand Jain AIR1997SC1006...............................................................2
58. Thiel v. Federal Commissioner of Tax (1990) 171 CLR 338....................................................8
59. U.B.S.E. Board v. Hari Shankar AIR 1979 SC 65.....................................................................7
60. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2004)10SCC1...............14
61. Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 707 (SC)....................................................8
62. Union of India v. Manmull Jain, AIR 1954 Cal 615..................................................................8
63. UOI v. Sukumar Sengupta, AIR 1990 SC 1692.........................................................................8
64. Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India 2009 (4) Bom CR 258......................2

B. BOOKS

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D -

1. SRINIVASAN, K, GUIDE

TO

Page | vi

DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENTS, (VIDHI

FOUNDATION, 2ND EDITION, NEW DELHI) (1992)

2. GUPTA, SS SERVICE TAX, HOW TO MEET YOUR

OBLIGATIONS

(TAXMANNS, 27 TH EDITION

VOL.1 & 2)
3. BASU, DD, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (WADHWA AND COMPANY, 7TH EDITION,
NAGPUR) (REP. 2003)
4. RAO, M.B. TAXATION

OF

FOREIGN INCOME (VIKAS PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT. LTD, 2 ND

EDITION, INDIA) (2006)

5. JAIN, M.P., INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (WADHWA AND COMPANY, 5TH EDITION,
NAGPUR) (REP. 2005)
6. KAGZI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (INDIA LAW HOUSE, 6TH EDITION) (2001)
7. MALIK, SURENDRA SUPREME COURT ON WORDS AND PHRASES, (EASTERN BOOK
COMPANY, 1ST EDITION, LUCKNOW) (1993)
8. SEERVAI, H.M., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA: A CRITICAL COMMENTARY (UNIVERSAL
BOOK TRADERS, 4TH EDITION) (1997)
C. DICTIONARIES
1. AIYAR, RAMANATHA P.: THE LAW LEXICON, WADHWA & COMPANY, 2ND EDN. NAGPUR
(2002).
2. BLACK, HENRY CAMPBELL: BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, 6TH ED., CENTENNIAL ED. (18911991).
3. CURZON. L. B: DICTIONARY OF LAW, PITMAN PUBLISHING, 4TH EDN. NEW DELHI
(1994).
4. GARNER, BRYAN A.: A DICTIONARY OF MODERN LEGAL USAGE, OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS 2ND EDN. OXFORD (1995).
5. GREENBERG, DANIEL AND ALEXANDRA,

MILLBROOK:

STROUDS

JUDICIAL

DICTIONARY OF WORDS & PHRASES, VOL. 2, 6TH ED., LONDON: SWEET & MAXWELL
(2000).

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D 6. JUSTICE DESAI, M.C.

AND

Page | vii

AIYAR, SUBRAMANYAM: LAW LEXICON & LEGAL MAXIMS,

2ND ED., DELHI: DELHI LAW HOUSE (1980).

7. MITRA, B.C. & MOITRA, A.C., LEGAL THESARUS, UNIVERSITY BOOK, ALLAHABAD
(1997).
8. MOYS, ELIZABETH M., CLASSIFICATION & THESAURUS FOR LEGAL MATERIAL, 3RD
ED., LONDON: BOWKER SAUR (1992).
9. OPPE., A.S., WHARTONS LAW LEXICON, 14TH ED., NEW DELHI: SWEET & MAXWELL
(1997).
10. PREM, DAULATRAM, JUDICIAL DICTIONARY, 1ST ED., JAIPUR: BHARAT LAW
PUBLICATION (1992).
D. STATUTORY COMPILATIONS

1. THE DIRECT TAXES CODE, 2010

2. INCOME TAX RULES, 1962
3. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

E. INTERNET SITES
1.

www.incometaxindia.gov.in

2. http://www.findlaw.com
3. http://www.indiankanoon.com
4. http://www.indlawinfo.org/
5. http://www.jstor.org.
6. http://www.judis.nic.in
7. http://www.lawsofindia.org
8. http://www.manupatra.com
9. http://www.scconline.com
10. http://www.supremecourtcaselaw.com

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D -

Page | viii

L I S T O F A B B R E V I AT I O N S
A.I.R.
All
AP
Art.
Bom
Cal
Co.
Comm.
CrLJ
DDIT
Del
DIT
DTAA
DTC
e.g.
Ed.
GAAR
HTA
ITA
Lah
LR
Mad
MANU
NNPT
p.
Para.
Pun
PNT
SC
SCC
SCN

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ALL INDIA REPORTER

ALLAHABAD
ANDHRA PRADESH
ARTICLE
BOMBAY
CALCUTTA
COMPANY
COMMISSIONER
CRMINAL LAW JOURNAL
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL TAX
DELHI
DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL TAX
DOUBLE TAX AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT
DIRECT TAX CODE
EXEMPLUM GRATIA (FOR EXAMPLE)
EDITION
GENERAL ANTI AVOIDANCE RULE
HELP TAX AVOIDANCE
INCOME TAX ACT
LAHORE
LAW REPORTER
MADRAS
MANUPATRA
NEED NOT PAY TAX

PAGE
PARAGRAPH
PUNJAB AND HARYANA
PAID NO TAX
SUPREME COURT
SUPREME COURT CASES
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D -

Page | ix

S TAT E M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O N
THE PETITIONERS HAVE APPROACHED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UNDER ARTICLE
136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WHICH READS AS HEREUNDER:
__________________________________________
136. SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE SUPREME COURT.
(1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING IN THIS CHAPTER, THE SUPREME COURT MAY, IN

ITS DISCRETION,

GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM ANY JUDGMENT, DECREE, DETERMINATION, SENTENCE OR
ORDER IN ANY CAUSE OR MATTER PASSED OR MADE BY ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL IN THE TERRITORY
OF INDIA.
(2) NOTHING IN CLAUSE

(1) SHALL APPLY TO ANY JUDGMENT, DETERMINATION, SENTENCE OR ORDER

PASSED OR MADE BY ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY OR UNDER ANY LAW RELATING TO
THE

ARMED FORCES.
__________________________________________

THE PETITIONERS SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS HONBLE COURT

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D -

Page | x

S Y N O P S I S O F FA C T S

YPT is a company incorporated in U.S.A. that wanted to acquire PNT incorporated in India
whose shares lye in the various companies in the following order: HTA, Hong Kong > TFT,
Cayman Islands > NNPT, Mauritius.

It therefore entered into SPA-I with its ultimate parent company HTA that would sell all its
shares that it held in TFT to the assessee, YPT.

In view of the Indian Court judgments similar to the transaction against such nonresident
purchasers the assessee entered into SPA-II, according to which it would purchase all the shares
which NNPT holds in PNT and HTA (parent company) would grant necessary authorization
permitting TFT to authorize NNPT to sell the shares to YPT at agreed rates.

JCIT issued a notice to PNT and YPT for getting details of their transaction. The whole
transaction was believed to evade the tax liability in India on sale of shares by NNPT. The DDIT
issued a show cause notice SCN where it was required to show as to why YPT should not be
deemed to be assessee in default AID.

After hearing YPTs submissions DDIT passed an order levying tax at 20% being long term
capital asset along with applicable surcharge and cess amounting to INR 2,060 Crores. Further
penalty and interest charges were also levied. The assessee filed writ petition against the
impugned order in the Bangalore High Court praying that the order passed by DDIT was quashed
since it was non est in law and violated the Constitution, settled tax treaties, income tax law
principles and also territorial limits of India.

The Honble High Court dismissed the writ petition.

On filing the Special Leave Petition, leave was granted and the matter was directed to be
heard on SLP paper books. The matter was then placed before the Constitutional Bench.
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D -

Page | xi

S TAT E M E N T O F I S S U E S
THE RESPONDENT RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THE
FOLLOWING

I.

QUESTIONS:

MAINTAINABILITY:

A. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WAS MAINTAINABLE?
B. WHETHER ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES WERE EXHAUSTED BEFORE APPROACHING THE HIGH COURT?
C. WHETHER THE DDIT HAD POWERS TO ISSUE SCN TO THE ASSESSEE?

II.

CONSTITUTIONALITY AND INCOME TAX:

A. WHETHER
THE

CODE

THE

GAAR

PROVISION AND INCOME DEEMED TO ACCRUE IN INDIA PROVISION OF

HAVE VIOLATED THE

CONSTITUTION,

SETTLED TAX TREATIES AND TERRITORIAL

LIMITS OF INDIA?
INTERNATIONAL TREATY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE

B. WHETHER

FLOUTED MERELY ON THE FACT THAT

C.

CONVENTION?
WHETHER THE

CODE

INDIA

CONSTITUTION

HAVE BEEN

IS NOT A SIGNATORY TO THE

BEING A LAW LATER IN TIME WOULD PREVAIL OVER

VIENNA

DTAA. SCOPE

OF

SUCH DOCTRINE
LEGISLATION UNILATERALLY TAX A TRANSACTION HAPPENING EXCLUSIVELY OUT OF

D. CAN

INDIA BETWEEN TWO NONRESIDENTS?

III.
OTHER ISSUES:
A. WHETHER SPA-II WAS SHAM AND WAS PURELY TO TREATY SHOP?
B. WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER IN THE TRANSACTION?
C. DID THE DDIT COMMIT PER INCURIAM BY NOT FOLLOWING THE
THIS

SETTLED JUDGMENTS OF

COURT?

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- P R E L I M I N A R I E S A DVA N CE D -

Page | xii

S U M M A RY O F A R G U M E N T S
MAINTAINABILITY
It has been most humbly submitted that the writ petition was maintainable before under Article
226 of the Indian Constitution. The High Court may issue a writ of certiorari to quash quasijudicial proceedings taken by income-tax authorities without jurisdiction/in excess of jurisdiction
or to quash an order which is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. The
existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to move a writ petition in the High Court.
CONSTITUTIONALITY AND INCOME TAX
(a) & (b) It has been most humbly submitted that GAAR and income deemed to accrue in India
provisions of the Act are in violation of Article 14, 21 and 301 of the Constitution of India. They
also seek to violate Article 245 by envisaging extra territorial operation without the existence of
any nexus. It is further contended that these provisions disregard International Treaty obligations
of the country merely because India is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention.
(c) & (d) As to the question of conflict between DTAA and DTC, it has been submitted that the
instant conflict between DTAA and DTC does not fall within the ambit of Last-in-time doctrine.
As to the question of unilateral taxation of such transaction, it has been submitted that the
Parliament is competent to enact such legislation under powers conferred to it under Article 245
of the Constitution of India.
OTHER ISSUES
(a) As to the question of SPA-II being a sham, it has been submitted that it was genuine transaction
with a legitimate corporate purpose.
(b) It has been submitted that beneficial owner in the transaction is NNPT.
(c) That DDIT committed per incuriam by not following the settled judgments of this Court.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

-Page 1 of 15-

A R G U M E N T S A D VA N C E D
MAINTAINABILITY
A. WHETHER

THE WRIT PETITION WAS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HIGH

COURT
1. It is most humbly submitted that the writ petition was maintainable before under Article 226 of
the Indian Constitution. The High Court may issue a writ of certiorari to quash quasi-judicial
proceedings taken by income-tax authorities without jurisdiction in excess of jurisdiction 1 or to
quash an order which is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record 2 or which is passed
in violation of the principles of natural justice3. Thus, the writ petition was maintainable.
B. WHETHER

THE

ALTERNATE

APPROACHING THE

REMEDIES

WERE

EXHAUSTED

BEFORE

HIGH COURT?

2. It is humbly put forth that in cases where there has been violation of fundamental right, resulting
from which a petitioner files a writ petition at the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the writ shall be considered regardless of the fact whether alternative
remedies had been exhausted or not. The existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to move
a writ petition in the High Court4. It can be derived from the instant case that there was violation
of fundamental rights of the appellant under articles 14 and 21. The power relating to alternative
remedy has been considered to be a rule of self imposed limitation which is a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion and not a rule of law.5
1 King v. Brixton IT Comrs 6 TC 195
2 Brahmananda v Gajapathinath (58 ITR 579)
3 IR v. Hood Barrs 39 TC 683 HL; Brahmananda v. Gajapathinath 58 ITR 579; Dwijendralal v.
New Central Jute 112 ITR 568; King v Briston IT Comrs (6 TC 195); State of UP v Bahadur
Singh 142 ITR 745.
4 Mohd. Yasin v. Town Area Committee AIR 1952 SC 115; Parkar v. Palekar 94 ITR 616
5 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 3856; Harbans Lal
Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., [2003] 2 SCC 107; L. Hirday Narain v. Income Tax
Officer, Bareilly AIR (1971) SC 33
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

-Page 2 of 15-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCEDC. WHETHER

3.

THE

DDIT

HAD POWERS TO ISSUE

SCN

TO THE ASSESSEE?

It is humbly contended that DDIT did not have powers to issue the SCN to YPT. SCN is issued
in situations payee fails to make payment; which clearly was not the concern in the matter. In the
instant case too, the issue of the show cause notice not founded on any legal principle and was
extra-territorial6 in its operation and was beyond the jurisdiction of the DDIT.
CONSTITUTIONALITY AND INCOME TAX
A WHETHER
INDIA

THE

GAAR

PROVISION AND INCOME DEEMED TO ACCRUE IN

PROVISION OF THE

CODE

HAVE VIOLATED THE

CONSTITUTION,

SETTLED TAX TREATIES AND TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF INDIA

4. It is humbly submitted that the provisions under Section 123 and Section 5(I)(d) of the Code
unconstitutional. According to the doctrine of severability in case of rendering any provision of
an Act unconstitutional it is not the whole Act which would be held invalid but only such
provisions of it which are violative of the fundamental rights, provided that the part which
violates the fundamental rights is separable from that which does not isolate them.7
The GAAR and income deemed to accrue in India provisions are in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
5. It is respectfully submitted that this Court in E.P.Royappa v. State of TN8 held that Equality is
antithetic to arbitrariness. Wherever we find arbitrariness and unreasonableness there is denial
of rule of law.9 It has also been held in Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University10 that classification
need not be to a mathematical precision. But if there is little or no difference between the persons
6 Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India 2009 (4) Bom CR 258; Sultana Begum
v. Premchand Jain AIR1997SC1006; Lal Thankar & Co. v. Union of India 2006(195) ELT 9
(Bom); Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. (2007) 120 Comp. Cases
467
7 RMDC v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628.
8 E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr 1974 AIR 555
9 Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1336; Motor General Traders v. State of
Andhra Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 121; Rattan Arya v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1986 SC 1444.
10 Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University AIR 1989 SC 903.
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

-Page 3 of 15-

or things that have been grouped together and those left out of the group, then classification
cannot be regarded as reasonable.11
6. It is humbly stated that in the instant case the scope of the Indian GAAR is wide reaching as it
seeks to cover within its ambit nearly all transactions and structures which have any element of
tax planning imbedded. There is no distinction between tax mitigation and tax avoidance as any
arrangement to obtain a tax benefit may be considered as an impermissible avoidance
arrangement. This incorporates subjectivity and ambiguity into the definition. Also Section 5(I)
(d) of the Act covers under its ambit any income if it accrues, whether directly or indirectly,
through or from the transfer of a capital asset situated in India. Such income should be
chargeable under the head Capital Gain under Section 46 of the Code. The fact that the
documents of transfer are registered outside India or consideration for transfer is paid outside
India is irrelevant for income to be chargeable under this clause.
7. There seems to be a lack of an intelligible differentia 12 and also lacks some rational nexus
between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved. 13 It is thus violative of
the fundamental right to equality and irrational in its approach and should be held
unconstitutional.
The GAAR and income deemed to accrue in India provisions are in
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution
8. It is humbly submitted that The Supreme Court from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India14
onwards took upon itself the task of infusing into the Constitutional provisions the spirit of social
justice. Further, the Supreme Court took a broader view of the scope and content of the
fundamental right to life and liberty. Article 21 was interpreted to include a bundle of other
11 Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877.
12 Jalia Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1975 SC 1436.
13 In re Special Courts Bill,1978,AIR 1979 SC 478; K. Thimnappa v. Chairman, Central Board
of Directors, AIR 2001, SC 467; Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services AIR 1997
SC 3801; Chairman,Railway Board v. Chandrama Das AIR 2000 998.
14 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

-Page 4 of 15-

incidental and integral rights.15 The court may declare a law invalid if it does not accord with its
notions of what is just and fair in the circumstances.16 The courts have insisted that the procedure
established by law must be strictly complied with and must not be departed from to the
disadvantage of the person17. A law conferring unguided and unrestricted power on an authority
is bad for arbitrary power is discriminatory.18
9. In the instant case the provisions of Section 123 are sweeping in nature and may be invoked by
the Assessing Officer in a routine manner. Section 5 provides sweeping powers to tax authorities
to determine any income accrued even indirectly through a capital asset situated in India as
taxable income under the Code19. This delegation of excessive and discretionary provisions to the
Indian Tax Authorities at the lower level is unreasonable and thus it is unconstitutional as it
violates Article 21.
These provisions violate the freedom of trade, commerce and
intercourse under Article 301 of the Constitution
10. It is further submitted that the Karnataka High Court in L&T Case Equipment Pvt. Limited
v. State of Karnataka20 it was opined that Article 301 is a mandatory provision and a legislation
in violation of the same shall be regarded as unconstitutional. In the instant case the imposition

15 Francis Corallie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of India, (1981) 2 SCR 516 right to lifeincludes
right to live with human dignity, in Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995)
3 SCC 42 right to health of workers, right to education in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666.

16 Seervai H.M, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 970 (1973)

17 Naranjan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 106; Ram Narayan Singh v. Delhi AIR 1953
SC 272; Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay SC 325.
18 Naraindas v. State of M.P. AIR 1974 SC 1232; Sudhir Chandra v. Tata Iron and Steel Co.
Ltd. AIR 1984 SC 1604.
19 It may be noted that Rule 10 of Income Tax Rules provides that, in the case where the income
accruing or arising to a non resident cannot be definitely ascertained, the Assessing officer can
determine the income either at such percentage of the turnover / profits and gains of the business
or such other manner as he may deem suitable.
20 L and T Case Equipment Pvt. Limited v. State of Karnataka ILR2009KAR3072.
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

-Page 5 of 15-

of tax on a transaction which occurred between non residents of the country is in violation of this
right and thus unconstitutional.21
Article 245 of the Constitution is being violated as income deemed to
accrue in India is extra territorial in nature
11. It is humbly submitted that Section 5 of the Code, both for residents and for non-residents
brings within the fold of chargeable total income, all income which is received or is deemed to
be received in India or which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise in India to the
assessee.22 In respect of non-resident his income accruing within India is subjected to tax.
12. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court in GVK23 held that: Parliament is constitutionally
restricted from enacting legislation with respect to extra-territorial aspects... All that would be
required would be that the connection to India be real or expected to be real, and not illusory or
fanciful. Any laws enacted by Parliament with respect to extraterritorial aspects or causes that
have no impact on or nexus with India would be ultra-vires.
13. It is thus stated that in the present case, the transaction was between two non-resident entities
through a contract executed outside India. Consideration was also passed outside India. That
transaction has no nexus with the underlying assets in India. The provision of Section 5(I)(d)
seek to tax such a transaction which does not have any nexus with India and thus are violative of
Article 245 of the Constitution.
These Provisions violate the settled Tax Treaties.
14. It is humbly submitted that in case of CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust24 Andhra Pradesh
High Court has taken a view that "though under section 9 (1)(i) of the Act, all income
21 Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. St of Rajasthan AIR 1962 SC 1406; Atiabari Tea
Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 232.
22 Sakalchand Babulal v ITO 47 ITR 673 (Mad), Annamalais Timber Trust & Co. v CIT 41
ITR 781 (Mad), Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. v CIT 23 ITR 152 (SC), Hira Mills Ltd. v ITO 14
ITR 417 (All) and Anglo-French Textile Company Ltd. v CIT 25 ITR 27 (SC).
23 GVK Inds. Ltd. and Anr. v. The Income Tax Officer and Anr. (2011)4SCC36
24 CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust 144 ITR 146.
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

-Page 6 of 15-

arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any "business connection" in India or
other income mentioned in that section shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India, the
charging section 4 as well as the definition of "total income" in section 5 are expressly made
subject to the provisions of the Act, which means that it is subject to the terms of the DTAA, if
any, entered into by the Government of India with foreign countries.
15. This principle has been accepted by the Courts and thus it is submitted that Section 5 (I) (d) and
Section 123 of the Code will ultimately result in international treaties running afoul and ending
up in courts. And thus the former should be declared invalid.
D. WHETHER

INTERNATIONAL

UNDER

THE

CONSTITUTION HAVE BEEN FLOUTED MERELY ON THE FACT THAT

INDIA

IS NOT A SIGNATORY TO THE

TREATY

VIENNA

OBLIGATIONS

CONVENTION?

16. It is most humbly submitted that Vienna Convention is a customary law and therefore would be
binding upon India despite the fact that India is not a signatory to it.
The neglect of international treaty obligations is violative of the
Directive Principles of State Policy
17. It is most humbly contended that according to the Article 51 c) of the Indian Constitution it is a
function of the state to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations. In the landmark
case of Kesavananda Bharthi v. State of Kerala 25, the apex court was of the view that The
Directive Principles should be looked upon as laying down the path of the Countrys progress
towards the allied objectives and aims stated in the Preamble The courts are bound to evolve,
affirm and adopt principles of interpretation which will further and not hinder the goals 26 set out

25 Kesavananda Bharthi v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461

26Madhu Kishwar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1996 SC 1864; GVK Inds. Ltd.
and Anr. Vs. The Income Tax Officer and Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 36;
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

-Page 7 of 15-

in the DPSPs27. Thus, clearly indicating that the setting aside of the international treaty obligation
was violative of the constitution.
The Vienna Convention is binding on India despite the fact that
India is not a signatory to it.
18. It is most humbly submitted before that the Vienna Convention 28 will have a binding effect over
India since it is customary law. Moreover, in the case of Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors.29, the Supreme Court referred to the General Rule of Interpretation contained in
the Article 3130 of the Vienna Convention. Though India is not a party to the Vienna Convention,
the principles of customary international law and principle of interpretation contained
provides a broad guideline for the appropriate manner of interpreting a treaty in the Indian
context also.
19. Under modern international law, it is clearly established that customary rules need not be
supported by all states. It is enough for the majority of states to engage in a consistent practice
and to believe in its legally binding authority. A State would be bound by a customary rule if it
was silent or indifferent as to it 31. Broader international law principles are to be adopted when
interpreting tax treaties32. Thus, based upon this, the same binding rule for customary law would
apply in the case of Articles 2633 and 2734 of the Vienna Convention of Law of Treaties.
27 U.B.S.E. Board v. Hari Shankar AIR 1979 SC 65; P.M. Ashwathanarayana v. State of
Karnataka AIR 1989 SC 100
28 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
29Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 176 of 2009
30 Article 31, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969: General Rule of Interpretation:
A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given
to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
31 Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines Ltd (1981) AC 251 at pp 276; Shipping Corporation of India
Ltd v. Gamlen Chemical Co (A/Asia) Pty Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 142 at p 159; Fisheries
Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v Iceland) [1974] I.C.J. Reports 3 at 50
32 Thiel v. Federal Commissioner of Tax (1990) 171 CLR 338
33 Article 26, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969: Pacta sunt servanda: Every
treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.
34 Article 27, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969: Internal law and observance of treatiesA party may
not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

-Page 8 of 15-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCEDE. WHETHER

OVER

THE

CODE

DTAA. SCOPE

BEING A LAW LATER IN TIME WOULD PREVAIL

OF SUCH DOCTRINE?

20. It is most humbly submitted that DDIT has contended that the Code being a statute later in time
than the DTAA entered between India and Mauritius, the code shall prevail over the DTAA35.
21. It is submitted that the instant conflict between DTAA and Direct Tax Code does not fall within
the ambit of Last-in-time36 doctrine.
The power to enter into treaties is an exercise of constitutional
power and DTAA cant be overridden by the Code.
22. In terms of article 73 of the constitution, the executive power of the union extends to the matters
regarding which the Parliament has power to make laws. Thus, absent parliamentary legislation
to the contrary, the power to negotiate and conclude international treaties is a prerogative of the
executive branch. The power of the executive branch to negotiate and conclude treaties is
unfettered by any internal constitutional restrictions37. This view has been endorsed by the courts
on several occasions38. Thus, it is submitted that treaty-making is an exercise of a Constitutional
power under article 7339 read with articles 53 and 246(1) and entry 14 of the Union List of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
23. Furthermore, it is put forth that only a constitutional power can trump another constitutional
power. To displace a constitutionally authorized act, a constitutional (and not merely a
legislative) norm would be required.

This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

35 Factsheet 11.
36 Hereinafter doctrine
37 See Indias statement of its treaty practice made to the U.N., available as U.N. Doc ST/LEG/SER.B/3.
38 Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 784; Union of India v. Manmull Jain, AIR 1954
Cal 615; UOI v. Sukumar Sengupta, AIR 1990 SC 1692; Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 707
(SC).
39 Article 73 (1) provides that the executive power of the Union Shall extend-(b) to the exercise of such rights,
authority and jurisdiction as exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

-Page 9 of 15-

24. In the matter of Re Berubari Union40, the Court held that in order to cede the territory of India
(which is defined by the constitution), a constitutional amendment would be necessary and a
treaty and/or a domestic legislation simpliciter is not sufficient.
25. Henceforth, it is respectfully submitted that the rules in a treaty cannot be overridden by
prescribing a conflicts rule in favor of domestic legislation, as the conclusion of treaties involves
as much the discharge of a constitutional function of lawmaking, albeit at the international level,
as enacting laws by the legislature does at the domestic level.
That the DTAA being a special law will prevail over DTC.
26. It is most humbly submitted that tax treaties are equivalent to a special legislation and the instant
conflict does not fall under the scope of this doctrine.
27. It is most humbly submitted that Klaus Vogel41 has opined that:Being restricted to cross-border
taxation of residents of the two contracting States, tax treaties are equivalent to special
legislation (lex speciales) compared to the contracting States general tax law (lex generalis).
Thus according to the old rule Lex specialis derogat legi genarali42, treaties override the
domestic tax law that is effective at the time of their implementation. Under a supplementary
rule of Lex posterior generalis non derogart legi priori speciali 43, changes of domestic tax
law normally will not affect existing treaties. This later rule does not apply, however, if the
legislator, when changing the general law, expressly or implicitly intended to repeal the special
law.44

40 In re Berubari Union, AIR 1960 SC 845.

41 Professor Emeritus, University of Munich.
42 Special legislation overrides general legislation
43 Later general legislation does not overrule earlier special legislation
44Excerpted from Tax Treaties and Domestic Law which was based on the presentations made at the Tax Treaties and
Domestic Law seminar held in Milan on November 21, 2005 and was edited by Professor Gulielmo Maisto.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

-Page 10 of 15-

28. The SC in the matter of R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka and another 45 considered
various judicial pronouncements46 pertaining to this doctrine and approved the following
quotation: A general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one mere by implication47
29. The petitioner humbly submits the Section-291(8)48 reflects the legislative intent of not
incorporating the Last-in-time rule and therefore, it is submitted the rule Lex posterior
derogate priori49, is not attracted in the instant conflict and hence, the Last-in-time doctrine is
not applicable.
The Last-in-time doctrine is ex-post in India.
30. It is most humbly submitted that the Last-in-time doctrine in India has substantial difference
from the doctrine prevalent in United States and its applicability will thrash legitimate
expectations, as this rule is ex-post in India.
31. The U.S. later in time doctrine has evolved as a constitutional doctrine emanating from the
supremacy clause in Article VI50 of the U.S. Constitution. In hierarchy, it comes across as a
constitutional and not merely a legislative norm. Second, being a constitutional rule, it precedes
the U.S.s international agreements; therefore, the treaty partners, when concluding a treaty, are
aware of such a position.
45 R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka and another, (1992)1SCC335
46 Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dey and Ors.,[1966]3SCR663; Eileen
Louise Nicoole v. John Winter Nicolle, [1992] 1 AC 284; Augusto De Piedade Barreto v. Antonio
Vicente Da Fonseca and Ors. etc. [1979]3SCR494; Ajay Kumar Banerjee and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors. (1984)ILLJ368SC
47 Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition at page 168
48 Section-291(8)Where the Central Government has entered into an agreement under subsection (1) or sub-section (2), or has adopted an agreement entered into by the specified
association under sub-section (4), as the case may be, then the provisions of this Code shall
apply in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, to the extent they are more
beneficial to him.
49 Later legislation overrides earlier inconsistent legislation
50 Article VI Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

-Page 11 of 15-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

32. Therefore, the Petitioners most reverentially submit that the applicability of such ex-post rule
will jeopardize the legitimate expectations of treaty partners and is against the spirit of Vienna
Convention.
F. CAN

LEGISLATION

UNILATERALLY

TAX

TRANSACTION

HAPPENING

EXCLUSIVELY OUT OF INDIA BETWEEN TWO NONRESIDENTS?

33. It is most reverentially submitted that this was purely a transaction occurring between two
nonresidents situated out of India and DTC does not have locus to tax such a transaction.
34. Furthermore, the parties to the agreement were only the Petitioners YPT51 and NNPT52. The
agreement was executed in Mauritius as per the laws of Mauritius. None of the transactions
happened in India and this was an arrangement/ agreement/ transaction which entirely happened
out of India including the payment and receipt of the sale consideration 53. On the date of the
transaction, Assessee was not involved in any business in India either directly or indirectly and
had no branch office, business connection/ transaction, source of income or any other nexus with
India54
Article 245 constitutionally restricts the Parliament from enacting
such legislation.
35. It is submitted that DTC aims to unilaterally tax a transaction happening exclusively out of India.
But, the Parliament is not empowered to enact laws in respect of extra-territorial aspects or
causes that have no nexus with India55.

51Why Pay Tax Inc. (YPT or the Company) is a company incorporated in Delaware, USA according to the
company laws of state of Delaware and is having its registered office at Dover, Delaware.

52 NNPT is a company incorporated in Mauritius.

53 Factsheet 6.
54 Factsheet 1.
55 GVK Inds. Ltd. and Anr. v. The Income Tax Officer and Anr., (2011)4SCC36
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

-Page 12 of 15-

36. The scope of Article 245(1)56 and the ratio of ECIL57 were analyzed by the Constitutional bench
of the Apex Court in the matter of GVK Inds. Ltd. and Anr. v. The Income Tax Officer and
Anr.58, and it was held by the Court that:1. The Parliament is constitutionally restricted from
enacting legislation with respect to extra-territorial aspects or causes that do not have, nor
expected to have any, direct or indirect, tangible or intangible impact(s) on or effect(s) in or
consequences for: (a) the territory of India, or any part of India; or (b) the interests of, welfare
of, wellbeing of, or security of inhabitants of India, and Indians
37. Therefore, the Petitioners submit that applying the ratio of above judicial pronouncement to the
instant facts, it can be concluded that this legislation deals with a transaction which entirely
happened out of India and between two non-residents and hence, it is ultra-vires.
The legislation cannot unilaterally tax this transaction and IndoMauritius DTAA must be taken into account.
38. That Article 260 explicitly vests Union the jurisdiction in relation to territories outside India. The
SC in the matter of GVK Industries59 interpreted Article 26060 and observed that: It is clear
from Article 260 that it is the Government of India which may exercise legislative, executive, and
judicial functions with respect of certain specified foreign territories, the Governments of which,
and in whom such powers have been vested, have entered into an agreement with Government of
India asking it do the same..
39. Therefore, it is submitted that legislation cannot unilaterally tax this transaction and the
provisions of Indo-Mauritius DTAA must be implemented.
56 Article 245(1) provides that (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament
may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India...
57 Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr, (1989) (2)
SCC 642;
58 Supra note 55
59 Ibid
60 Article 260 provides that The Government of India may by agreement with the Government
of any territory not being part of the territory of India undertake any executive, legislative or
judicial functions vested in the Government of such territory, but every such agreement shall be
subject to, and governed by, any law relating to the exercise of foreign jurisdiction for the time
being in force.
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

-Page 13 of 15-

The legislation cannot unilaterally tax this transaction and IndoMauritius DTAA must be taken into account.
40. It is most reverentially submitted that Article 25 of Indo-Mauritius DTAA61 incorporates the
provision of Mutual Agreement Procedure62. Thus, as the agreement provides that the
Contracting states shall resolve the difficulties or doubts by MAP, the Central Government must
discuss the issue with competent authorities of Mauritius. Henceforth, it is most respectfully
submitted this legislation cannot unilaterally without complying by the provisions of IndoMauritius DTAA, tax a transaction happening entirely out of India and it is ultra-vires the
Constitution of India.
OTHER ISSUES
A WHETHER SPA-II

WAS A SHAM AND PURELY TO TREATY SHOP

41. It is most humbly submitted that SPA-II was not a sham to treaty shop, but it was a genuine
transaction executed with a legitimate corporate purpose.63
42. Further, the issue of treaty-shopping was dealt by this court in the Azadi Bachaho Andolan64 and
it was held by the Court that: We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is
otherwise valid in law can be treated as non-est merely on the basis of some underlying motive
supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests..
43. The SC in Vodafone65 judgment affirmed the principle laid down in Azadi Bachao66 and also
obsereved that: No court will recognise sham transaction or a colourable device or adoption of
61 Agreement for avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion with Mauritius
dated 24-8-1982.
62 Article 25 provides that the competent authorities of the Contracting States shall endeavour
to resolve by mutual agreement any difficulties or doubts arising as to the interpretation or
application of the Convention. They may also consult together for the elimination of double
taxation in cases not provided for in the Convention.
63 Factsheet 5.
64 Union of India (UOI) and Anr. v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2004)10SCC1
65 Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India and Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO.733 OF
2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26529 of 2010)
66 Supra note 64
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

-Page 14 of 15-

a dubious method to evade tax, but to say that the Indo-Mauritian Treaty will recognise FDI and
FII only if it originates from Mauritius, not the investors from third countries, incorporating
company in Mauritius, is pitching it too high, especially when statistics reveals that for the last
decade the FDI in India was US$ 178 billion and, of this, 42% i.e. US$ 74.56 billion was
through Mauritian route.
44. Thus, in the light of law laid down in above cited judicial pronouncements and facts of the
instant matter, it can be concluded that there exists a corporate business purpose strong enough to
override the evidence of device and SPA-II was a part of genuine tax planning. Therefore, the
Petitioners submit SPA-II was not a sham to treaty-shop.
G. WHO

IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER IN THE TRANSACTION?

45. It is most humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the beneficial owner in the
transaction was NNPT, a company incorporated in Mauritius.
46. The Petitioner submits that the parties to the agreement were YPT and NNPT 67. The agreement
was executed and the sale consideration was paid to NNPT by YPT as agreed upon 68. NNPT held
100 % shares of PNT69.
47. It is most respectfully submitted that further transfer of money from NNPT to TFT and from TFT
to HTA is merely co-incidental. HTA, TFT and NNPT have a parent-subsidiary relationship and
this was their internal transaction which has nothing to do with SPA-II.

67 Factsheet 6
68 Factsheet 7
69 Factsheet 3
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCEDH. DID

THE

DDIT

-Page 15 of 15COMMIT PER INCURIAM BY NOT FOLLOWING THE

SETTLED JUDGMENTS OF THIS

COURT?

48. It is most reverentially put forth that the DDIT committed per incuriam70 by not following the
settled judgments of this Honble Court.
49. In Govt. of A.P. v. B. Satyanarayana Rao 71it has been held as follows: The rule of per incuriam
can be applied where a court omits to consider a binding precedent of the same court or the
superior court rendered on the same issue or where a court omits to consider any statute while
deciding that issue.
50. Thus, the Petitioner submits the judgment of SC in Azadi Bachao Andolan72 is a law under
Article 14173 of the Constitution and DDIT has avoided and ignored the same and hence, it is
submitted that DDIT has committed per incuriam.

70 Halsbury laws of England states that decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted
in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which
covered the case before it, in which case it must decide which case to follow; or when it has
acted in ignorance of a House of Lords decision, in which case it must follow that decision; or
when the decision is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or rule having statutory force.
71 Govt. of A.P. v. B. Satyanarayana Rao, (2000)IILLJ545SC
72 Supra note 64.
73 Parkash Singh Badal and Anr.v. State of Punjab and Ors.(2007)1SCC
-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

-PRAYER-

-Page | xvi-

P R AY E R

HEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENT

ADVANCED,

REASONS

HONBLE COURT

GIVEN

AND

AUTHORITIES

CITED,

THIS

MAY BE PLEASED TO:

TO HOLD

THAT
THAT

PROVISIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

THAT THE CODE DISREGARDS INTERNATIONAL TREATY OBLIGATIONS ENSHRINED

IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

THAT THE CODE BEING A LAW LATER IN TIME WILL NOT PREVAIL OVER

THAT

THE WRIT PETITION WAS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

THE

GAAR PROVISION

AND

INCOME

DEEMED

TO

ACCRUE

IN

INDIA

DTAA

THE LEGISLATION CANNOT UNILATERALLY TAX A TRANSACTION HAPPENING

EXCLUSIVELY OUT OF INDIA BETWEEN TWO NON-RESIDENTS

THAT THE SPA-II WAS NOT SHAM OR PURELY TO TREATY SHOP

THAT NNPT IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER IN THE TRANSACTION
THAT THE DDIT COMMITTED PER INCURIAM BY NOT FOLLOWING

THE SETTLED

JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT

TO SET ASIDE
THE

ORDER PASSED BY THE

HIGH COURT

MISCELLANEOUS
AND

ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT IN
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

ALL

OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONERS-

-PRAYER-

-Page | xviCOUNSELS

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ON BEHALF OF THE

FOR THE

PETITIONERS

PETITIONERS-