Territorial jurisdiction in income-tax writs depends on cause of action, and an available statutory appeal can bar writ interference.

Mere service of an income-tax notice under section 148 does not by itself create territorial jurisdiction for a writ petition; the court treated the absence of any part of the cause of action within its territory as decisive. The availability of an appellate remedy against an order under section 163, treating a person as agent of a non-resident assessee, also weighs against writ interference because an efficacious statutory appeal is ordinarily a sufficient alternative remedy. The combined effect is that territorial nexus and remedy exhaustion remain central limits on writ jurisdiction in income-tax matters.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the mere service of a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 conferred territorial jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain the writ petition; (ii) whether the availability of an appeal against an order under section 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 barred interference in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether the mere service of a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 conferred territorial jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain the writ petition.

Analysis: The notice related to alleged escapement of income of a non-resident assessee for assessment year 1998-99 and was issued from Mumbai. The Court held that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction and that mere service of the notice on the petitioner did not constitute a sufficient territorial nexus for invoking writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the availability of an appeal against an order under section 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 barred interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order treating it as an agent of the non-resident firm under section 163. The Court held that an appellate remedy was available against that order and, on that ground as well, writ interference was not warranted.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ application was held to be not maintainable in the High Court and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere service of an income-tax notice does not by itself create territorial jurisdiction, and where an efficacious statutory appeal is available against an order, writ interference is ordinarily not justified.

---