9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... embers individually. Therefore, the logical conclusion to the ruling should have been that the transaction of offshore supplies which was part of the contract undertaken by the consortium, had to be considered on the basis that it was an activity carried on by the consortium - thus the offshore supplies is not liable to tax in India is a ruling inconsistent with the finding that the assessing unit is an AO - the mistake is apparent and it requires to be corrected - allow the application filed by the Revenue to the extent of reopening that part of the ruling which rules that the amount received / receivable from the applicant from the offshore supplies in terms of the contract dated 17.11.2009 is not liable to tax in India - A.A.R. No. 854 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3 . In the ruling dated 1.2.2009, it was held that since the applicant is not entitled to relief in terms of section 90(2) of the Act, the fiscal jurisdiction to tax the offshore supplies would be governed by the Act. It was thereafter that it was ruled that the amount received/receivable by the applicant from Petronet for offshore supplies in terms of the contract dated 17.11.2009 is not liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Act. It is submitted on behalf of the Revenue, that if the assessing unit is an AOP and one of the members of the AOP is a resident company as in this case, the actual ruling is clearly a mistake to be corrected to make the ruling consistent with the finding earlier rendered. 4 . This authority had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derstood only as a provisional order. So even if I ignore the assertion in the certificate granted to the company that the giving of the certificate is not to be considered in any way as giving effect to the ruling of this Authority, the fact remains that it is only a provisional certificate subject always to a regular assessment. Consistent with the status of the proceedings under section 195 or 197 of the Act as expounded by this Authority and clarified by the Supreme Court, the modification of the certificate granted to the company by the officer cannot stand in the way of the application for rectification being entertained on merits. 7 . It is contended on behalf of the company that what is sought for by the Revenue is not the correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Rules. 9 . I may notice here that the parties were fully heard in support to the application and on the merits of the contentions raised and this order is being pronounced only thereafter. 10 . I am therefore, satisfied that the ruling requires to be corrected to the effect that the transaction has to be found taxable in the hands of the AOP consisting of the applicant and its joint venture partner. It will be necessary to find out as to what would be consequence of this finding on the ruling to be given. In fairness it appears to me that, that part of the ruling dealing with the assessability of the income from the offshore supplies on the basis that the assessee would be an AOP, has to be reopened and the application heard a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
