Respondent No.3 must accept and decide petitioner's Form 35A refiled objections, deemed filed April 11, 2025, within nine months

HC directed that Respondent No.3 has jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's refiled objections in Form 35A; those objections are deemed filed on April 11, 2025. Noting the Transfer Pricing Order and Draft Assessment Order were passed in Delhi and on Revenue counsel's representation, Respondent No.3 is ordered to accept, hear and dispose of the objections on merits within nine months from the date of this order. The consequential order of Respondent No.6 dated July 29, 2025 is quashed and set aside.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the objections filed under Form 35A before a Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) seat at one location are maintainable when the Transfer Pricing Order and Draft Assessment Order were passed by authorities seated at a different location.

2. Whether different geographically-situated benches/seats of a single Dispute Resolution Panel constitute separate, independent fora for determining maintainability, or whether jurisdiction must follow the seat of the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer who passed the impugned orders.

3. Whether a rejection of maintainability by one DRP seat (by administrative act/email) can be sustained where the Revenue subsequently concedes that another DRP seat had jurisdiction, and what remedial relief is appropriate (including quashing of consequential orders passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer).

4. Whether the writ court may direct the appropriate DRP seat to accept a re-filed objections application as if filed on the earlier date and to decide objections on merits within a specified time, with directions for fair hearing.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Maintainability of objections before a DRP seat located differently from the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer

Legal framework: The statutory and procedural scheme contemplates filing of objections to draft assessment/transfer pricing orders before a Dispute Resolution Panel; jurisdictional competence is determined by reference to the authorities that passed the Transfer Pricing Order and Draft Assessment Order.

Precedent Treatment: No prior judicial precedents were cited or relied upon by the Court in the text of the judgment.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the Revenue's instruction that the DRP seat located where the Transfer Pricing Officer and Assessing Officer were seated (Delhi seat) possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate objections arising from orders passed by those authorities. The Court treated the question of maintainability as dependent on the locus of the impugned orders rather than the administrative location where the taxpayer's books are maintained or where the taxpayer initially attempted filing. Administrative acts of non-acceptance by a DRP seat geographically different from the seat linked to the impugned orders cannot displace the jurisdictional link to the seat of the officer that passed the impugned orders.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - jurisdiction for considering objections follows the seat of the authority that passed the impugned orders; administrative refusal to accept objections at a different seat does not create a valid bar to adjudication by the correct seat. Obiter - ancillary remarks regarding the Respondents being "one body" sitting at different benches were observational and not relied upon as the sole basis for relief.

Conclusions: The objections were held maintainable before the DRP seat having jurisdiction over the officers who passed the Transfer Pricing and Draft Assessment Orders; hence the DRP seat to which jurisdiction properly attaches must accept and decide the objections on merits.

Issue 2 - Characterisation of geographically separate DRP seats and effect on jurisdiction

Legal framework: Administrative organisation of DRP benches/seats may be such that the Panel sits at multiple locations; however, jurisdiction to entertain objections is governed by statutory scheme and the seat linked to the issuing authority.

Precedent Treatment: Not addressed by reliance on precedent; determination based on facts and instructions recorded by Revenue counsel.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted submissions that the DRP operates as one body notwithstanding multiple sitting locations, but the operative conclusion rested on the Revenue's instruction identifying which seat had jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that the taxpayer should not be compelled to run from pillar to post and that procedural technicalities must not impede substantive adjudication.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - commentary that a DRP may be "one body" notwithstanding multiple benches; Ratio - the practical effect is that the seat having territorial/functional jurisdiction over the issuing authorities must hear the objections.

Conclusions: Geographic multiplicity of DRP sitting venues does not justify rejection of objections where the seat with jurisdiction (linked to the issuing officers) accepts or is identified as competent to hear the objections.

Issue 3 - Validity of rejection communicated by email and consequential Transfer Pricing Officer order

Legal framework: Administrative orders or communications rejecting maintainability must be consistent with jurisdictional rules; consequential orders by Assessing/Transfer Pricing Officers implementing such rejections are subject to judicial review where jurisdictional impropriety is shown.

Precedent Treatment: None cited.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated the impugned rejection (communicated by email) and the consequential TPO order as voidable to the extent they relied upon an incorrect view of maintainability and/or jurisdiction. Given the Revenue's concession that the Delhi DRP seat had jurisdiction and the subsequent refiling of objections at that seat, the Court concluded that the consequential TPO order passed in implementation of the erroneous rejection could not stand.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - consequential orders passed by revenue authorities pursuant to an incorrect rejection of maintainability by a DRP seat lacking jurisdiction are liable to be quashed; Obiter - procedural criticism of timing and conduct of administrative communication.

Conclusions: The consequential TPO order dated 29 July 2025 was quashed and set aside as it flowed from the impugned rejection; the taxpayer is thereby restored to a position to have objections decided on merits by the proper DRP seat.

Issue 4 - Appropriate judicial remedy: direction to accept refiled objections and time-bound disposal with fair hearing

Legal framework: Writ jurisdiction permits courts to grant equitable and remedial relief including quashing of administrative orders and direction to administrative authorities to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law, ensuring principles of natural justice and time-bound adjudication.

Precedent Treatment: No precedents were cited; relief was moulded based on the Court's discretionary power to secure substantive justice.

Interpretation and reasoning: In light of the Revenue's acknowledgment of the correct DRP seat and the factual matrix that the petitioner had initially attempted filing but was refused administrative acceptance, the Court directed the DRP seat with jurisdiction to accept the objections as originally filed (Form 35A dated April 11, 2025) and to hear and dispose of them on merits within nine months. The Court required adherence to fair hearing standards and procedural law, and imposed no order as to costs. The relief both remedied procedural prejudice and prevented irreparable consequence from the earlier administrative rejection.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a litigant has been administratively prevented from filing objections before the competent DRP seat, the writ court may direct acceptance of a refiled application as if filed earlier and prescribe a time-bound disposal with fair hearing; Obiter - remarks regarding mode of communication (digital signing) for operational convenience.

Conclusions: The DRP seat identified as having jurisdiction was directed to accept the refiled objections as the original filing and to decide them on merits within nine months, ensuring fair procedure; the consequential TPO order was quashed. No costs were imposed.

Cross-References and Practical Implications

1. Issues 1 and 2 are interrelated: the determination of maintainability depended on the identity of the issuing authorities' seat (Issue 1), and the presence of multiple DRP sittings does not alter the jurisdictional nexus (Issue 2).

2. Issue 3 flows from Issues 1-2: once the initial rejection was seen as premised on incorrect administrative allocation of jurisdiction, consequential implementation orders became vulnerable to quashing.

3. Issue 4 is remedial and dispositive: the Court exercised writ powers to restore the petitioner's procedural rights and to ensure adjudication on merits within a fixed period, thereby preventing prejudice from administrative misallocation.

---