2022 (12) TMI 296 - HC - GST

Territorial Jurisdiction - amount was recovered from the cash credit account of the appellants in a bank situated in the State of West Bengal - part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in the state of West Bengal - HELD THAT - Under normal circumstances, this can be construed as one of the factors to consider whether part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular Court. However, in the instant case the appellants are registered dealers in the State of Bihar and the project was executed by the appellants in Bihar and the proceedings had been initiated by the jurisdictional officer in Patna. Therefore, it is appropriate for the appellants to canvass all issues before the appropriate forum in the State of Bihar and a writ petition in the given facts and circumstances is not maintainable before this Court. The appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellants to approach the appropriate forum in the State of Bihar and if the appellants does so, the period during which the writ petition was pending till receipt of the server copy of this order shall stand excluded for the purpose of computing limitation.

Summary

Issues: Lack of territorial jurisdiction in a writ petition challenging an order by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax in Patna-North.

Analysis:
1. The High Court of Calcutta heard an intra-Court appeal against an order dismissing a writ petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The challenge was to an order by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax in Patna-North.

2. The appellants argued that part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court as the amount was recovered from their bank account in West Bengal. However, the appellants were registered dealers in Bihar, and the project in question was executed in Bihar, leading to the conclusion that the appropriate forum for the issues raised was in Bihar.

3. The Court emphasized that the location of the bank account alone is not sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction. Since the appellants were registered in Bihar and the project was carried out there, the jurisdictional officer in Patna initiated the proceedings, making it clear that the matter should be addressed in Bihar, not Calcutta. Therefore, the writ petition was deemed not maintainable before the Calcutta High Court.

4. The appeal was dismissed, granting the appellants liberty to approach the appropriate forum in Bihar. The period during which the writ petition was pending was excluded for computing limitation if the appellants chose to proceed in Bihar. The connected application was also dismissed, and no costs were awarded in this matter.

5. The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, with agreement from Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya. The Court directed the expeditious provision of a certified copy of the order to the parties upon completion of legal formalities.