Challenging the order by way of a writ before the Gujarat High Court, the Assessee submitted that given the nature of the services and the ‘make available’ clause in the India-Singapore DTAA, the orders passed ought to be quashed. The High Court allowed this prayer in the writ. The High Court held that the order wrongly relies primarily on the alleged inadequacy of the invoice descriptions. The TDS AO has neither examined the provisions of S. 9(1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act read with Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA, nor the Agreement dated 01.01.2014 to determine whether Solvay Singapore ‘made available’ any technology or skill to the petitioner. Hence, the TDS AO’s order is erroneous and deserves to be quashed. The High Court also noted that it is not inclined to reject the writ petition, and relegate the Assessee to avail the remedy of appeal, since it has raised legal issues relating to interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the jurisdiction and powers of AO under different Chapters. It also held that the order suffers from non-application of mind to vital aspects raised by the Assessee.