Advance ruling review remains open under constitutional writ jurisdiction, but direct special leave may be declined in favour of High Court review.

An advance ruling under Chapter XIX-B of the Income-tax Act was treated as an exercise of judicial power by a tribunal because it determines questions of law and fact and carries binding effect under Section 245S. That statutory finality did not exclude constitutional judicial review: challenge remained maintainable before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227, and Article 136 also remained available in principle. However, because special leave is discretionary, direct recourse to the Supreme Court was not encouraged where the challenge could appropriately be pursued before the High Court. The petitioner was left to seek relief before the appropriate High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether an advance ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings can be challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court or under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court, and whether the Supreme Court should entertain the special leave petition directly.

Analysis: The Authority for Advance Rulings was held to exercise judicial power and to function as a tribunal because it determines questions of law and fact relating to transactions and tax liability under Chapter XIX-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and its rulings are binding under Section 245S of that Act. The binding nature of the ruling does not oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 or of the Supreme Court under Article 136. At the same time, Article 136 is discretionary, and direct recourse to the Supreme Court against an advance ruling is not to be encouraged where the challenge can appropriately be pursued before the High Court.

Conclusion: A challenge to the advance ruling was maintainable before the High Court, and the special leave petition was not entertained directly by the Supreme Court. The petitioner was left to seek relief before the appropriate High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory finality clause binding an advance ruling does not exclude constitutional judicial review, but the Supreme Court may decline direct special leave and require recourse to the High Court where that forum is appropriate.

---