Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"An authority acts in a judicial capacity when, after investigation and deliberation, it performs an act or makes a decision that is binding and conclusive and imposes obligation upon or affects the rights of individuals."

The Supreme Court also considered the issue as to whether even if the provisions of Section 245N(a)(iii) provided that the ruling of the AAR shall be binding on the persons specified under Section 245S, would it denude the powers of the judicial review vested in the High Court under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court referring to the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in L.Chandra Kumar V. Union of India11 held that the power vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It was therefore, held that a proposition that an advance ruling of the authority should not be permitted to be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution would be to negate a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The observations in that regard are required to be noted which read thus:-

.... ... ... .

19. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others (1997)3 SCC 261, a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that: (SCC pp.301-02, para 79) "79. ... .. ... the power vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic structure of the Constitution."

Therefore, to hold that an advance ruling of the authority should not be permitted to be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution would be to negate a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Nonetheless, we do understand the apprehension of the Authority that a writ petition may remain pending in the High Court for years, first before a learned Single Judge and sat 901. wp 7804-2021 thereafter in Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench and as a result the object of Chapter XIX-B of the Act which is to enable an applicant to get an advance ruling in respect of a transaction expeditiously would be defeated. We are, thus, of the opinion that when an advance ruling of the Authority is challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, the same should be heard directly by a Division Bench of the High Court and decided as expeditiously as possible.