SHIVA KANT JHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution styled as a Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking multifarious reliefs including of declaration arising from the grievance of the petitioner about the mode and manner in which the governance of international treaties are sought to be made applicable to the citizens of India. It is the case of the petitioner, who appears in person, that the powers and authority of the Central Government are being abused and are sought to be exercised in violation of the constitutional mandate by entering into Double Taxation Avoidance agreements (more specifically in relation to the provisions relating to Mutual Agreement Procedure), ratification and adoption of Uruguay Round Final Act (WTO Treaty) and the provisions relating to the MAP set forth in the CBDT's instruction as also under the Income Tax Rules 1962.

(2.) THE petitioner took us through the pleadings and the various synopsis filed by him to firstly contend that in matters of taxation the mode adopted by the Central government was impermissible. The petitioner is, however, conscious of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 1 pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents in which proceedings he had appeared. The question of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaties specifically forms subject matter of discussion and enunciation of law in that behalf inter alia is in the following paragraphs:

(3.) THE petitioner, thus, fairly states that though the aspect sought to be urged by him is covered by these observations his grievance is that the enunciation of law in this behalf is not correct. The petitioner informs us that his endeavour to seek review of this judgement and then file a curative petition has been unsuccessful. We have put to the petitioner that once the aspect of mode and manner of implementation of treaties relating to double taxation forms subject matter of the aforesaid adjudication, it is not permissible for us to go into this question and the hierarchy of courts must be respected where the enunciation of law by the highest court is binding on us. The petitioner states that these are in the nature of observations which are obiter and does not reflect the ratio. We are unable to accept this plea on a bare reading of the judgement.