SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution styled as a Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking multifarious reliefs including of declaration arising from the grievance of the petitioner about the mode and manner in which the governance of international treaties are sought to be made applicable to the citizens of India. It is the case of the petitioner, who appears in person, that the powers and authority of the Central Government are being abused and are sought to be exercised in violation of the constitutional mandate by entering into Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (more specifically in relation to the provisions relating to Mutual Agreement Procedure), ratification and adoption of Uruguay Round Final Act (WTO Treaty) and the provisions relating to the MAP set forth in the CBDT’s Instruction as also under the Income Tax Rules 1962.

2. The petitioner took us through the pleadings and the various synopsis fileby him to firstly contend that in matters of taxation the mode adopted by the Central Government was impermissible. The petitioner is, however, conscious of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 1 pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents in which proceedings he had appeared. The question of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaties specifically forms subject matter of discussion and enunciation of law in that behalf inter alia is in the following paragraphs:

“19. When it comes to fiscal treaties dealing with double taxation avoidance, different countries have varying procedures. In the United States such a treaty becomes a part of municipal law upon ratification by the Senate. In the United Kingdom such a treaty would have to be endorsed by an order made by the Queen-in-Council. Since in India such a treaty would have to be translated into an Act of Parliament, a procedure which would be time-consuming and cumbersome, a special procedure was evolved by enacting Section 90 of the Act.

20. The purpose of Section 90 becomes clear by reference to its legislative history. Section 49-A of the Income Tax Act, 1922 enabled the Central Government to enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for the granting of relief in respect of income on which, both income tax (including supertax) under the Act and income tax in that country, under the Income Tax Act and the corresponding law in force in that country, had been paid. The Central Government could make such provisions as necessary for implementing the agreement by notification in the Official Gazette. When the Income Tax Act, 1961 was introduced, Section 90 contained therein initially was a reproduction of Section 49-A of the 1922 Act. The Finance Act, 1972 (Act 16 of 1972) modified Section 90 and brought it into force with effect from 1-4-1972. The object and scope of the substitution was explained by a circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (No. 108 dated 20-3-1973) as to empower the Central Government to enter into agreements with foreign countries, not only for the purpose of avoidance of double taxation of income, but also for enabling the Tax Authorities to exchange information for the prevention of evasion or avoidance of taxes on income or for investigation of cases involving tax evasion or avoidance or for recovery of taxes in foreign countries on a reciprocal basis. In 1991, the existing Section 90 was renumbered as sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1991 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1972. CBDT Circular No. 621 dated 19-12-1991 explains its purpose as follows: “43. Taxation of foreign companies and other non-resident taxpayers.—Tax treaties generally contain a provision to the effect that the laws of the two contracting States will govern the taxation of income in the respective State except when express provision to the contrary is made in