https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216078 The High Court allowed both writ petitions, quashing the AAR's order rejecting the applications. The court held that the petitions challenging the AAR's order were maintainable before the High Court under Articles 226/227. It determined that subsidiaries of a Government Company qualified as Government Companies under the relevant provisions. The court clarified that the AAR's discretionary power must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The AAR's rejection of the applications was deemed erroneous as the petitioners had not engaged in any transactions and sought rulings on proposed activities. The AAR was directed to decide on the applications within three months. en-us Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2014 14:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216078 The High Court allowed both writ petitions, quashing the AAR's order rejecting the applications. The court held that the petitions challenging the AAR's order were maintainable before the High Court under Articles 226/227. It determined that subsidiaries of a Government Company qualified as Government Companies under the relevant provisions. The court clarified that the AAR's discretionary power must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The AAR's rejection of the applications was deemed erroneous as the petitioners had not engaged in any transactions and sought rulings on proposed activities. The AAR was directed to decide on the applications within three months. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216078