Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of a transfer pricing order issued under Section 92CA(3) for Assessment Year 2017–18 along with a draft assessment order.

The core grievance of the petitioner was that the impugned transfer pricing order:

  • Was unsigned and undated, and
  • Was received via email without a digital signature,

which, according to the petitioner, violated mandatory CBDT instructions and notifications requiring that all e-proceeding communications be digitally authenticated.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a transfer pricing order issued without a digital signature is invalid and void in law.
  2. Whether the writ petition is premature when an alternative remedy before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is available.
  3. Whether the DRP has jurisdiction to adjudicate such objections. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The impugned transfer pricing order is legally invalid as it is unsigned and not digitally authenticated.
  • It is in direct contravention of CBDT instructions and statutory notifications governing e-proceedings.
  • The Dispute Resolution Panel does not have jurisdiction to decide such fundamental legal defects in the order.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The writ petition is premature, as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
  • The petitioner has already raised similar objections before the DRP.
  • The DRP is competent and empowered to adjudicate these issues.
  • Reliance was placed on judicial precedents:
    • Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India (2014) 361 ITR 531 (Bom)
    • Messe Dusseldorf India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2010) 320 ITR 565 (Del)

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The petitioner chose to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise all contentions before the Dispute Resolution Panel.
  • The Court disposed of the petition accordingly.
  • It was explicitly clarified that:
    • The Court did not examine the merits of the case.
    • All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.
    • The petitioner may pursue further legal remedies after the DRP decision, if aggrieved.

Important Clarification

  • The Delhi High Court did not adjudicate on the validity of the unsigned order.
  • The judgment emphasizes the principle that statutory alternative remedies (like DRP) must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.
  • The ruling reinforces judicial restraint in tax matters where specialized forums are available.

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2021:DHC:4404-DB/MMH24122021CW149602021_212551.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.