2020 (5) TMI 658 - HC - Income Tax

Settlement Commission order - Madras High Court jurisdiction to look into the matter - valid reason to come to the conclusion that the relief under Section 80HHC is not required to be computed - HELD THAT - This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case since the petitioner herein and the assessing authorities are at Bangalore and merely because the order under challenge had been passed by the Chennai Bench of the Settlement Commission, the cause of action cannot be said to arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, when the events leading to the filing of the proceedings before the Chennai Bench of the Settlement Commission and the parties to such proceedings are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence it would not be appropriate to entertain this writ petition by this Court. Taking note of the principles enunciated in the above decisions and taking note of the fact that the petitioner herein and the assessing authorities are at Bangalore, as already observed above, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain this writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed, however, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the High Court of Karnataka, for appropriate relief.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the Settlement Commission's decision on re-computing deduction under Section 80HHC.
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the Settlement Commission's decision dated 30.03.2005, which declined the request for re-computing the deduction under Section 80HHC. The petitioner argued that the Commission, being bound by the Income-tax Act, should have determined the relief under Section 80HHC in accordance with statutory provisions. The petitioner contended that the Commission erred in holding that the determination of total income did not affect export profits, resulting in additional tax liability. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, supported the Settlement Commission's decision, citing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as detailed in the impugned order.

2. The Court considered the territorial jurisdiction issue, noting that the petitioner and assessing authorities were in Bangalore, while the events leading to the proceedings and the parties involved were outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted the distinction between cause of action jurisdiction and the doctrine of forum conveniens. The Court emphasized that even a small part of the cause of action within a High Court's jurisdiction may not compel the Court to decide on merits. Citing relevant cases, the Court concluded that it was not appropriate to entertain the writ petition due to the lack of territorial connection, dismissing the petition and suggesting the petitioner approach the High Court of Karnataka for relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised in the case comprehensively, focusing on the legal arguments, reasoning, and conclusions reached by the Court regarding the Settlement Commission's decision and the jurisdictional aspect of the petition.