EXPRO GULF LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, in all these writ petitions identical questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the writ petition are taken up together for hearing and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) By way of present petitions, the petitioner is assailing the notification dated 1.11.2013, Annexure-A to the writ petition), mainly on the ground that "Cyprus" ought not to have been declared as notified jurisdictional area in view of international treaty between Government of India and Government of Cyprus. It is argued by Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per Article 28 of the Treaty, the Contracting States are bound to exchange such information (including documents) as is necessary for carrying out the provisions of the Agreement or of the domestic laws of the Contracting States concerning taxes covered by the Agreement. Learned Senior Counsel 3 appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the very basis of issuing the impugned notification dated 1.11.2013 that Government of Cyprus is not cooperating with the Government of India and, despite several requests, not supplying the information sought by the authorities of Government of India, on the face of it, is wrong in view of the Press Release made by the Cyprus Authorities that they have never denied any information and they had been ready and willing to supply the information sought by the Government of India.

(3.) Bare perusal of the notification dated 1.11.2013 would reveal that Cyprus has not been providing the information as requested by the Indian Authorities under the provisions of Exchange of Information Agreement, therefore, Government of India has decided to notify Cyprus as notified jurisdictional area under Section 94-A of the Income Tax Act.