2021 (9) TMI 1229 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of the Writ Petitions - lack of territorial jurisdiction - Whether the petitioners as well as the Settlement Commission are not falling with the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras? - HELD THAT - As relying on M/S. MULBERRY SILKS LTD 2020 (9) TMI 771 - MADRAS HIGH COURT the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Leaving it open to the petitioners to move the High Court of Kerala having jurisdiction if they are so advised. It is made clear that the Writ Petitions have been dismissed solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petitions and the merits of the case of the petitioners have not been dealt with.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission based on territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras.

The High Court of Madras dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court referred to a previous decision where it was established that the doctrine of dominus litis and the situs of the Appellate Tribunal do not align. The Court emphasized that the determination of jurisdiction should be based on the relevant statute, and multiple High Courts having jurisdiction was not contemplated by Parliament. The Court noted that the appellant was an assessee in Bangalore, and the Appellate Authority was also located in Bangalore. Therefore, the lack of territorial jurisdiction justified the rejection of the writ petition. The Court dismissed the writ appeal, leaving the option open for the appellant to approach the High Court of Karnataka. The dismissal was solely based on the lack of territorial jurisdiction, and the merits of the case were not addressed.

The Writ Petitions were dismissed in accordance with the principles established in a previous judgment. The petitioners were given the option to move the High Court of Kerala if advised, as the High Court of Madras lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. The dismissal was solely due to the jurisdictional issue, and the merits of the petitioners' case were not discussed. The Court ordered no costs to be imposed and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras upheld the dismissal of the Writ Petitions challenging the orders of the Income Tax Settlement Commission based on the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction based on the relevant statute and previous legal principles. The petitioners were given the option to approach the appropriate High Court if advised, and the dismissal was solely due to the jurisdictional issue without delving into the merits of the case.