2004 (10) TMI 43 - HC - Income Tax

Registered office vis- -vis principal place of business - section 124 - principal place of business may or may not be a registered place of business - While deciding the merits of the case I find pursuant to the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court the then Commissioner of Income-tax Lucknow on April 25 1994 has found that because the registered office of the company is situated within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Special Range Moradabad the petitioner is deemed to have the principal place of business of the company within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid officer. This finding in my view is not legally tenable by reason of the fact that the petitioner in its objection specifically stated that though petitioner No. 1 does have its registered office at Moradabad and also has various branch offices at various places its principal place of business and/or corporate office is located at Calcutta impugned orders are set aside

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.
2. Legality of the orders and notices compelling the petitioner to file returns at Moradabad.
3. Determination of the principal place of business under section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition:

The court first addressed the issue of jurisdiction. The respondents contended that the Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the impugned orders and notices were issued by authorities located in Lucknow and Moradabad, outside the territorial limits of the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner argued that part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the Calcutta High Court, as their principal place of business was in Calcutta, and they had been filing returns there.

The court noted that under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, a High Court can exercise jurisdiction if part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits. The court held that the petitioner's principal place of business being in Calcutta and the filing of returns there constituted an integral part of the cause of action. The court also referenced previous judgments supporting this view, including the Division Bench decision in Everest Coal Co. v. Coal Controller and the single Bench decision in Ravi Hi-Tech Ltd. v. CIT. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

2. Legality of the orders and notices compelling the petitioner to file returns at Moradabad:

The petitioner challenged the orders dated April 25, 1994, and April 30, 1996, and the notices dated October 30, 1996, and March 12, 1997, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Moradabad. The petitioner argued that these orders and notices were illegal as they compelled the petitioner to file returns at Moradabad, despite their principal place of business being in Calcutta.

The court found that the Commissioner at Lucknow had erred in equating the registered office with the principal place of business. The court emphasized that the principal place of business is where the control and direction of the corporate body are exercised, which in this case was Calcutta. The court referenced the Allahabad High Court decision in Dina Nath Hemraj of Cawnpore v. CIT and the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Devi Dayal Marwah v. CIT, which supported the view that the principal place of business is the controlling place.

3. Determination of the principal place of business under section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The court examined section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which pertains to the jurisdiction of Assessing Officers. The petitioner argued that their principal place of business was in Calcutta, and hence, the Assessing Officer in Calcutta had jurisdiction over their returns.

The court found that the petitioner's principal place of business was indeed in Calcutta, as evidenced by the uncontroverted averments in the writ petition and the fact that returns had been filed and assessed in Calcutta. The court held that the Commissioner at Lucknow had failed to consider the petitioner's objections and had incorrectly determined that the principal place of business was Moradabad based solely on the location of the registered office.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the two impugned orders and the subsequent notices, holding that the petitioner had successfully established that their principal place of business was in Calcutta. Consequently, the petitioner was not required to file returns at Moradabad. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order was confirmed, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →