1993 (7) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Sikkim.
2. Applicability of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to companies registered in Sikkim before its extension to Sikkim.
3. Validity of notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Double taxation on the same income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court of Sikkim:
The primary issue was whether the High Court of Sikkim had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions filed by companies registered in Sikkim challenging notices issued by income-tax authorities in Delhi. The court noted that under clause (1) of article 226 of the Constitution, jurisdiction is based on the location or residence of the respondent, while under clause (2), it is based on the cause of action. Since all respondents were located outside Sikkim, the court did not have jurisdiction under clause (1). The court determined that the cause of action, including the issuance and service of notices, arose in Delhi. Therefore, no part of the cause of action arose in Sikkim, and the High Court of Sikkim did not have jurisdiction under clause (2) either.

2. Applicability of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to Companies Registered in Sikkim Before Its Extension:
The petitioners argued that the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not applicable to Sikkim before its extension on April 1, 1989, and that they were governed by the Sikkim State Income-tax Manual, 1948. The court acknowledged that before the extension of the 1961 Act, the residents of Sikkim were not liable to pay tax under the Indian Income-tax Act and were subject to the Sikkim State Income-tax Manual. However, the court clarified that the Sikkim law could not have extra-territorial operation to apply to incomes earned outside Sikkim. As such, the Indian Income-tax Act applied to incomes earned in other parts of India.

3. Validity of Notices Issued Under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioners challenged the validity of notices issued under section 148, arguing that they were not served at the registered office in Sikkim. The court noted that the notices were served in Delhi, and the question of whether the service was valid or not was a matter concerning the merits. The court emphasized that it had a supervisory jurisdiction and not an appellate one, and the issue of where the income accrued or was received was to be determined by the appropriate income-tax authorities, not by the writ court.

4. Double Taxation on the Same Income:
The petitioners contended that they could not be taxed twice on the same income, once under the Sikkim State Income-tax Manual and again under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court explained that there was no occasion for double taxation as the Sikkim law applied to incomes earned in Sikkim, while the Indian Income-tax Act applied to incomes earned in other parts of India. The court concluded that the special provisions of article 371F did not imply double taxation for the same income under both laws.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and held that the High Court of Sikkim did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. Consequently, all the writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.