9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi for setting aside orders of income-tax authorities in Haryana. Analysis: The petitioner challenged three assessment orders and a rejection under section 154 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Gurgaon, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Haryana. The petitioner argued that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India as the cause of action partly arose within its territorial jurisdiction. However, the court examined the concept of cause of action and concluded that no cause of action had arisen within Delhi's jurisdiction concerning the impugned orders issued by authorities in Haryana. The petitioner relied on legal precedents like State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties and Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., but the court found that these cases did not support the petitioner's claim. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction for the publication of orders under section 126 of the Act by the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. The court noted that such orders were already published in the Government Gazette and tax law journals, and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, issued orders within their jurisdiction, which was beyond the territorial reach of the High Court of Delhi. Ultimately, the court held that the petition did not fall within its territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner's attempt to stretch the facts or relief sought to bring the case under Delhi's jurisdiction was dismissed. Consequently, the petition was rejected due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the court's examination of the petitioner's arguments regarding jurisdiction, the concept of cause of action, reliance on legal precedents, and the dismissal of the petition based on territorial jurisdiction.
|
