Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 746 - HC - Income TaxTerritorial jurisdiction of high court - settlement application - Second Respondent is a resident of Hyderabad in the State of Telangana and aggrieved by the action taken against him by the Petitioner, whose office is also situated at Hyderabad in the State of Telangana, he made an application in Settlement Application in Madras high court - HELD THAT - Reason stated by the Petitioner for having approached this Court instead of High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad is that the 'seat of authority' of the First Respondent is situated at Chennai within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this Court. Even if it is assumed that in addition to the High Court of Telangana, this Court would also have territorial jurisdiction, the principle of forum conveniens would come into play as held by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in C. Ramesh E, 2013 (6) TMI 888 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . There does not appear to be any justification to entertain the Writ Petition in this Court, which would not, however, preclude the Petitioner from filing fresh Writ Petition for the same relief before the High Court of Telangana. See M/S. ZEENATH INTERNATIONAL SUPPLIES 2014 (3) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and M/S. MULBERRY SILKS LTD. 2020 (9) TMI 771 - MADRAS HIGH COURT .
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition challenging the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the issue of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition challenging the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The petitioner approached the High Court of Madras instead of the High Court of Telangana, citing the 'seat of authority' of the First Respondent being in Chennai. The principle of forum conveniens was brought into play, emphasizing that the territorial jurisdiction of the Court is linked with the place of accrual of cause of action. The judgment referenced various legal precedents to highlight that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, it may not be a determinative factor in deciding the matter on merit. The Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the Doctrine of forum conveniens. The Court emphasized that lack of jurisdiction to entertain a matter goes to the root of the matter, rendering any action taken or orders passed null and void. It was clarified that while the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Madras High Court, the petitioner was not precluded from filing a fresh Writ Petition for the same relief before the High Court of Telangana. The judgment cited previous decisions of Division Benches of the Court to support this view. The Court made it explicit that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter, ensuring clarity on the scope of the dismissal of the Writ Petition. In conclusion, the High Court of Madras dismissed the Writ Petition with clarifications, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional considerations and the proper forum for legal proceedings. The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to territorial jurisdiction rules and the Doctrine of forum conveniens in determining the appropriate venue for legal disputes.
|