Court refers key legal questions to larger bench including jurisdiction, forum selection, and NaFAC's impact

The Court referred several questions of law to a larger bench, including territorial jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, impact of NaFAC's presence in Delhi, right to choose forum, and res judicata. The matter was referred to the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench to provide a definitive ruling on these issues.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain writ petitions when the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is located outside the NCT of Delhi.
2. Application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
3. Impact of the presence of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) in Delhi on jurisdiction.
4. The right of the petitioner to choose the forum when part of the cause of action arises in multiple jurisdictions.
5. Application of the principles from the Full Bench decision in Sterling Agro Industries Limited v. Union of India.
6. Application of the principle of res judicata in WP(C) No.9307/2022.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The primary issue is whether this Court has the necessary territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain writ petitions when the JAO is located outside the NCT of Delhi. The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the writ petitions cannot be entertained by this Court as the situs of the jurisdictional assessing officers are outside Delhi. The Petitioner argued that the NaFAC, which is headquartered in Delhi, performs all functions related to faceless assessment, thus conferring jurisdiction on this Court. The Court noted that the role of the JAO becomes functus officio after the return is received and that the NaFAC has jurisdiction to make assessments.

2. Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens:
The revenue contended that this Court should reject the writ petitions based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that the most convenient forum for an assessee would be where his PAN is located. The Petitioner countered that the NaFAC in Delhi performs the assessment functions, and thus this Court is the appropriate forum. The Court acknowledged the need to consider the doctrine of forum non conveniens, especially in tax matters where the location of the PAN is significant.

3. Impact of NaFAC's Presence in Delhi:
The Petitioner argued that the presence of NaFAC in Delhi, which performs all assessment-related functions, provides a substantial part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court. The revenue, however, maintained that the NaFAC merely facilitates the assessment process, and the actual assessment is done by faceless assessment officers located randomly across the country. The Court observed that the NaFAC's role in finalizing and communicating the assessment order does not necessarily confer jurisdiction on this Court.

4. Right to Choose Forum:
The Petitioner, being dominus litis, argued for the right to choose the forum when part of the cause of action arises within multiple jurisdictions. The Court referred to the principle that the petitioner has the freedom to choose the forum, but this must be balanced with considerations of convenience and the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

5. Principles from Sterling Agro Industries Limited:
The Full Bench decision in Sterling Agro Industries Limited v. Union of India emphasized that even if a small fraction of the cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction. However, the Court may refuse to exercise such jurisdiction based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Court noted that this principle needs to be applied to determine whether to entertain the writ petitions.

6. Principle of Res Judicata in WP(C) No.9307/2022:
In WP(C) No.9307/2022, the Petitioner argued that the issue of maintainability was already decided in their favor in an earlier writ petition, thus invoking the principle of res judicata. The revenue contended that the present challenge is a fresh cause of action as the impugned assessment order was passed by the JAO in Chandigarh after the case was transferred from NaFAC. The Court acknowledged the need to consider whether the principle of res judicata applies in this case.

Conclusion:
The Court framed several questions of law to be decided by a larger bench, including issues of territorial jurisdiction, the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the impact of NaFAC's presence in Delhi, the right to choose the forum, and the application of the principle of res judicata. The matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench to provide an authoritative pronouncement on these issues.

---