26 - Advance Rulings

No. In the case of H D Motors Company India Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (2) TMI 1250 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, NEW DELHI] , it was held that the Commissioner has not been able to substantiate his claim that a mistake of law or facts has occurred requiring us to invoke regulation 18 to modify the said advance ruling. The Commissioner has also not been successful in convincing us that there has been any mistake apparent from the record or there is any factual or material error in the records for us to order any rectification or amendment of the said mistake or error under Regulation 19 or 20 of the Procedure Regulations. The Authority does not have the jurisdiction under the law to reconsider or review its own ruling as has been sought by the Commissioner.

However as per Sec. 96F of Finance Act, 1994, authority for advance ruling can declare a already announced ruling void ab initio on the representation of Commissioner or otherwise if it is shown that the ruling is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts by the assessee.

Advance ruling review barred except when ruling procured by fraud or misrepresentation, enabling annulment under law. The Authority for Advance Rulings lacks jurisdiction to reconsider or review its own ruling absent a substantiated mistake of law or fact or a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification or amendment under the procedural regulations; however, a previously announced ruling may be declared void ab initio if it is shown to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts.