IN HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2871 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...... .Respondents With Writ Petition No. 2882 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...... .Respondents With Writ Petition No. 2881 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...... .Respondents With Writ Petition No. 2877 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...... .Respondents With Writ Petition No. 2872 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...... .Respondents 2 And Writ Petition No. 2873 of 2014 (M/S) Expro Gulf Limited ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...... .Respondents Present: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Asst. Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent no. 1. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for Income Tax Department/ respondent nos. 2 & 3. Hon ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Since, in all these writ petitions identical questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, with consent of learned counsel for parties, all writ petition are taken up together for hearing and are being decided by this common judgment. By way of present petitions, petitioner is assailing notification dated 1.11.2013, Annexure-A to writ petition), mainly on ground that Cyprus ought not to have been declared as notified jurisdictional area in view of international treaty between Government of India and Government of Cyprus. It is argued by Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner that as per Article 28 of Treaty, Contracting States are bound to exchange such information (including documents) as is necessary for carrying out provisions of Agreement or of domestic laws of Contracting States concerning taxes covered by Agreement. Learned Senior Counsel 3 appearing for petitioner, would contend that very basis of issuing impugned notification dated 1.11.2013 that Government of Cyprus is not cooperating with Government of India and, despite several requests, not supplying information sought by authorities of Government of India, on face of it, is wrong in view of Press Release made by Cyprus Authorities that they have never denied any information and they had been ready and willing to supply information sought by Government of India. Bare perusal of notification dated 1.11.2013 would reveal that Cyprus has not been providing information as requested by Indian Authorities under provisions of Exchange of Information Agreement, therefore, Government of India has decided to notify Cyprus as notified jurisdictional area under Section 94-A of Income Tax Act. While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily should not proceed to look into as to whether informations sought by Indian Authorities were ever declined by Government of Cyprus or Government of Cyprus is ready and willing to supply informations sought by Indian Authorities. Moreover, there seems to be no valid reason to disbelieve satisfaction so recorded by Indian Authorities. Consequently, petitions fail for relief No. (a). In present writ petitions, petitioner is also challenging revised certificate dated 12.12.2014 passed by Income Tax Authorities. Undisputedly, Income Tax Authorities are competent under Section 154 of 4 Income Tax Act to revise earlier orders passed, even suo moto, if any illegality or irregularity is observed therein, at subsequent stage. Undisputedly, all orders passed under Section 154 of Act can be assailed in statutory appeals. Since, alternative remedy of statutory appeal is available to petitioner to challenge revised certificate dated 12.12.2014, therefore, I am not inclined to invoke my writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner contends that appellate forum shall be approached within ten days from today. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department/respondent nos. 2 & 3, submits that in case appeals are preferred against revised certificates, same shall be disposed of in accordance with law without any undue delay. Consequently, all writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. All CLMAs also stand disposed of accordingly. Let copy of this judgment be kept in all connected writ petitions. (Alok Singh, J.) 22.1.2015 Avneet/ Expro Gulf Limited v. Union of India and other