Whereas we still need to read the order and analyze, I was to first correct the media headline of some who instantly reported the news. There is fundamental difference between dismissal and disposal of writ.

The operative part of the Bombay HC order as was read out firstly seems to have distinguished from it’s earlier division bench judgement which dismissed Vodafone matter, albeit on different facts. In the present case, firstly, the HC felt that Vodafone has made out a case for intervention. It has essentially held that the tax administration erred in jumping to the question of valuation of shares without determining the question of changeability ( to tax ) of such share issuance transaction under chapter X of the income tax law and subjected a capital account receipt to tax.

In other words, the question of valuation seems to have become secondary. Besides, directing the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to determine the preliminary question of charge-ability keeping in mind the statutory hierarchical provision under the Income tax law, the Court has held that Vodafone can approach the HC directly in the event the DRP order is patently incorrect. The argument of government that writ should not be admitted on the ground that there is alternate remedy seems favoring Vodafone, else, it would have directed to DRP order to appeal to the tribunal.