https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391452 The writ court declined to interfere with the AAR's refusal to answer the advance ruling application because the basic consortium agreement, necessary to understand the transaction and the rights claimed, was not produced despite opportunities. The applicant also failed to show that obtaining the document was impossible. On those facts, the refusal to pronounce on the questions raised was treated as a justified procedural and merits-based response, and no ground was made out for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391452 The writ court declined to interfere with the AAR's refusal to answer the advance ruling application because the basic consortium agreement, necessary to understand the transaction and the rights claimed, was not produced despite opportunities. The applicant also failed to show that obtaining the document was impossible. On those facts, the refusal to pronounce on the questions raised was treated as a justified procedural and merits-based response, and no ground was made out for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391452