IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B.PARDIWALA, NISHA M. THAKORE, JJ.
Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through Secretary – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4820 of 2022
Decided On : 27-04-2022
Territorial Jurisdiction - Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Article 226 - Cause of Action - [TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION] - [INCOME TAX] - [Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] - The court considered the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ application challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court analyzed the concept of 'cause of action' and the interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to territorial jurisdiction. The court referred to various judgments and observed that the entire bundle of facts pleaded must constitute a cause of action to empower the court to decide a dispute that has arisen within its jurisdiction. The court concluded that the notice issued at the writ applicant's residential address in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, did not confer jurisdiction to the High Court, especially when the writ applicant was consistently assessed to tax at Cuttack, Orissa. The court rejected the writ application and directed the writ applicant to file an appropriate writ application before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
Fact of the Case:
The writ applicant challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for the A. Y. 2015-16. The issue revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice issued at the writ applicant's residential address in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, did not confer jurisdiction to the High Court, especially when the writ applicant was consistently assessed to tax at Cuttack, Orissa. The court rejected the writ application and directed the writ applicant to file an appropriate writ application before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
Issues: The main issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ application challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of 'cause of action' and the concept of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court concluded that the notice issued at the writ applicant's residential address in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, did not confer jurisdiction to the High Court, especially when the writ applicant was consistently assessed to tax at Cuttack, Orissa.
Final Decision: The court rejected the writ application and directed the writ applicant to file an appropriate writ application before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
JUDGMENT :
J.B.PARDIWALA, J.
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;
“(a) A Writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31-03-2021 issued by the respondent for the assessment year 2015-16;
(c) Pending the admission and final disposal of this petition, restrain the respondent from proceeding with reassessment for the assessment year 2015-16 pursuant to the impugned notice dt. 31-03-2021 and the order dt. 24-02-2022;
(d) Provide for cost of this petition;
(e) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem to be fit and more appropriate in order to grant interim relief to the petitioner”
2. The subject matter of challenge is the legality and validity of the notice issued by the ITO, Ward 1(1), Cuttack (State of Orissa) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act, 1961”) seeking to reopen the assessment for the A. Y. 2015-16 under Section 147 of the Act, 1961.
3. At the outset, Mr. M. R. Bhatt, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the present writ application on the ground of the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court to entertain the present writ application.
4. Mr. Bhatt first invited the attention of this Court to page : 8 of the paper book. At page : 8 of the paper book, the writ applicant has annexed the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 dated 31st March 2021. The perusal of the impugned notice is indicative of the fact that the same was issued to the writ applicant at his address at Orrissa.
5. Mr. Bhatt, thereafter, invited the attention of this Court to page : 9 of the paper book. At page : 9 of the paper book, the return of income filed by the writ applicant for the A. Y. 2015-16 has been annexed. It is evident from the perusal of the return of income that the same was filed at Cuttack (Orrissa). Thereafter, Mr. Bhatt invited the attention of this Court to page : 17 of the paper book. At page : 17 of the paper book, the writ applicant has annexed the assessment order dated 29th December 2017. The assessment order has been passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Cuttack.
6. As against the aforesaid, Mr. Tej Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant invited the attention of this Court to page : 22 of the paper book. At page : 22 of the paper book, the writ applicant has annexed a notice dated 18th December 2021 served upon him under Section 143(2) of the Act, 1961. This notice came to be issued to the writ applicant at Ahmedabad at the address stated therein. Mr. Tej Shah would submit that since the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, 1961 came to be issued to his client in Ahmedabad and reply to the same was also filed with the department at Ahmedabad, this Court may entertain this writ application as some part of the cause of action could be said to have arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court.
ANALYSIS:
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether we should entertain this writ application or relegate the writ applicant to file an appropriate writ application in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
8. For answering the aforesaid question we would like to consider the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution as it stood prior to amendment. Originally, Article 226 of the Constitution read as under:-
Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao
K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission etc.
Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India and another
State of Rajasthan and others v. M/s. Swaika Properties and another
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and others
Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and another
Union of India and others v. Adani Exports Ltd. and another
Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income-tax and others
Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India
Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.
Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg Ltd and others [2006 (3) SCC 658]
Navinchandra N. Majithia [(2000) 7 SCC 640 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 215]
Delhi Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & others [2011 (181) DLT 658]
Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.