9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 235 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - cause of action - jurisdiction to this High Court - Appropriate High Court - HELD THAT - Just because a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, 1961 came to be issued to the writ applicant at his residential address at Ahmedabad, State of Gujarat, by itself, will not confer jurisdiction to this High Court, more particularly, when the writ applicant is being assessed to tax consistently at Cuttack. The writ applicant has a PAN card at such place. The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was also issued at Cuttack. The return of income for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also filed at Cuttack. The final assessment order dated 29th December 2017 for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also passed at Cuttack. We are of the view that we should not entertain this writ application and relegate the writ applicant to file an appropriate writ application before the High Court of Orrissa at Cuttack.
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court 2. Legality and Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court: The primary issue addressed was whether the Gujarat High Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application. The respondent argued that the writ application was not maintainable in the Gujarat High Court because the impugned notice and the assessment order were issued in Cuttack, Orissa, and the writ applicant was also assessed in Cuttack. The Court examined Article 226 of the Constitution, which allows High Courts to issue writs if the cause of action arises wholly or partly within their jurisdiction. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including *Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao*, *K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission*, and *Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India*, which emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to its territorial boundaries unless a part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. The Court further discussed the amended Article 226(2), which permits High Courts to issue writs if the cause of action arises wholly or partly within their jurisdiction. The term "cause of action" was analyzed with references to various cases like *State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties*, *Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu*, *Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India*, and *Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.*. The Court concluded that the mere issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act to the writ applicant in Ahmedabad did not constitute a significant part of the cause of action to confer jurisdiction to the Gujarat High Court. The Court emphasized the doctrine of forum conveniens, suggesting that the appropriate forum for the writ application would be the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. 2. Legality and Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The writ applicant challenged the legality and validity of the notice dated 31-03-2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16. The Court did not delve deeply into the merits of this issue due to the decision on the territorial jurisdiction. However, it acknowledged the writ applicant's contention that the notice was issued without proper jurisdiction and sought its quashing. 3. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The writ applicant also challenged the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The Court noted that the final assessment order for the said year was passed at Cuttack, and the return of income was also filed there. Similar to the previous issue, the Court refrained from making any observations on the merits due to the lack of territorial jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Gujarat High Court concluded that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application. The Court directed the writ applicant to file an appropriate writ application before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The interim relief granted earlier was extended for two weeks to enable the writ applicant to seek appropriate legal remedies. The writ application was rejected without any opinion on the merits of the case.
|
