S. Manikumar, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to an order of the writ court, made in W.P. No. 3611/2016 dated 22.02.2016, by which, the writ court, declined to entertain the writ petition, on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction.

2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner Tecpro System Limited is a public limited company and represented by its Authorised Signatory/Principal Officer at Chennai. Prayer sought for in the writ petition was for a mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi/respondent, not to take any coercive or any other steps against the petitioner, which is under the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), as per the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (SICA), by invoking the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to a proceeding dated 20.01.2016 issued by the respondent.

3. Proceedings dated 20.01.2016 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi reads as follows:

"To

The Principal Officer,

M/s. Tecpro System Ltd.,

202-204, Pacific Square Mall

JMD Campus

Sector-15, Gurgaon

Sub:- Assessee deemed to be an assessee in default u/s 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- reg. Please refer the above

In this regard, it has been observed that during the course of survey operation u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.01.2016 in your case at the above mentioned premises, you have deducted TDS amount of Rs. 17,43,74,191/- for the F.Y.2013-14, F.Y.2014-15 and F.Y.2015-16, which has not been deposited into the Govt A/c till date.

In view of the same, you are hereby held as an assessee deemed to be in default u/s 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, you are required to discharge this TDS liability of Rs. 17,13,74,191/- and interest of Rs.5,31,87,872/- (approx.) u/s 201(1A) of Income Tax Act, totalling to Rs.22,45,62,063/- immediately.

In case of non-compliance recovery proceedings as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be initiated accordingly."

4. Contention of the writ petitioner is that TDS is deducted at Chennai and their office is located at Chennai. Therefore, when part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, writ petition is maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 207, Union of India v. Adani Exports reported in (2002) 1 SCC 567, Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711 and whereas the respondent, while opposing the maintainability of the writ petition, submitted that the order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the respondent is at New Delhi, the Delhi High Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Reliance has been made to a decision in Rajkumar Mangla v. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and others reported in (1998) 234 ITR 0113.

5. Writ court also considered a decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and another resported in 2004 (6) SCC 254, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience."

6. Going through the material on record, writ court in W.P. No. 3611/2016 dated 22.02.2016 at paragraphs 5 to 7 ordered as follows:

"5. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could be seen that the writ petition has been filed pursuant to the order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the respondent at New Delhi. Though the prayer sought for is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the learned counsel appearing for