9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition challenging the levy of service tax on architects residing outside the jurisdiction of the court. Analysis: The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the provisions of the Finance Act, 1998, and the Rules framed thereunder, levying service tax on architects as ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The appellant, represented by the Indian Institute of Architects, sought a writ of declaration. An interim stay was granted earlier, but a contempt application was filed due to non-compliance in other states. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, citing lack of jurisdiction, as the petitioner's registered office was not in Chennai. The appellant argued that the cause of action arose in Chennai, where the impugned provisions were to be implemented. However, the High Court held that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, as the appellant's registered office was in Mumbai, and the respondents were not amenable to the court's jurisdiction. The writ petition was found to challenge the levy on all members nationwide, not specifically within the court's jurisdiction. The appellant relied on Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the cause of action partially arose within the court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's interpretation of "cause of action" was discussed, emphasizing the facts pleaded in the petition. The High Court found that the residence of the appellant's President in Chennai was irrelevant to determining jurisdiction. The court noted that the writ petition did not represent the Tamil Nadu Chapter of the Institute of Architects but challenged the levy on all members nationwide. Referring to precedent, the court emphasized the importance of filing petitions where the registered office is located. The court distinguished cases cited by the appellant, highlighting the importance of the cause of action's territorial connection. The decisions of the Allahabad and Bombay High Courts were discussed in this context. Ultimately, the High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, concluding that the writ petition was not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court did not express an opinion on the case's merits due to the jurisdictional issue.
|
