High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear GST lottery ticket writ petition under Article 226(2)

The SC allowed the appeal and set aside the HC's order dated 6th June, 2018. The case involved territorial jurisdiction of HC to entertain writ petitions challenging GST levy on lottery tickets. The appellant sought deletion from respondents' array, arguing that a notification under state statute cannot be judicially scrutinized by HC of different state where no cause of action arose. The HC had dismissed appellant's applications, holding part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction under Article 226(2). However, SC found HC erred by not properly examining whether petition memo demonstrated how cause of action arose within territorial limits or how rights were affected within the territory, concluding no case was made out for territorial jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court.
2. Cause of Action.
3. Forum Conveniens.

Summary:

Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The appellant, one of the respondents in three writ petitions pending before the High Court of Sikkim, sought deletion from the array of respondents, arguing that the High Court of Bombay at Goa was the appropriate forum for challenging a notification issued by it. The appellant contended that a notification issued under a state statute cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny by a high court of a different state, especially when no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of that high court. The High Court of Sikkim, however, dismissed the applications, leading to these appeals.

Cause of Action:
The primary issue was whether the High Court of Sikkim was justified in holding that "at least a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court." The writ petitions challenged various notifications under the CGST Act, IGST Act, and rate notifications by the States of Goa, Maharashtra, Punjab, and Sikkim. The petitioners sought a declaration that the impugned notification was unconstitutional and illegal. The High Court held that since the petitioners were aggrieved by notifications issued by both the central and state governments, part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.

Forum Conveniens:
The Supreme Court examined the petition memo and found no substantial averments supporting the claim that part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Sikkim. The Court emphasized that the cause of action must be material facts imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief. The Court held that the High Court should have considered the concept of forum conveniens, as even if a small part of the cause of action arose within Sikkim, it should not have been the determinative factor compelling the High Court to keep the writ petitions alive against the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in dismissing the applications filed by the appellant. The impugned judgment and order dated 6th June 2018 were set aside, and the civil appeals were allowed. The appellant was deleted from the array of respondents in the writ petitions, and the High Court was directed to proceed with the writ petitions against the other respondents according to law. The order did not preclude the writ petitioners from approaching the appropriate court to challenge the notification dated 30th June 2017 in accordance with the law.

---