Territorial jurisdiction for CGST summons challenge fails where issuance and service were both in Maharashtra, despite Hyderabad registered office

Territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ challenge to a Section 70 CGST summons depended on where the summons was issued and served, not merely on the location of the petitioner's registered office. Because the summons was addressed to the Pune establishment and issued by an authority based in Mumbai, both relevant connections lay in Maharashtra. The petitioner's registered office at Hyderabad did not by itself create territorial jurisdiction for the Telangana High Court, so the writ petition was not maintainable there on territorial jurisdiction grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court for the State of Telangana had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to the petitioner's establishment at Pune, Maharashtra, by an located at Mumbai, Maharashtra.

Analysis: The summons was issued to the petitioner's establishment in Pune, and the issuing authority was stationed in Mumbai. Both the place where the summons was served and the office of the issuing authority were within the State of Maharashtra. The mere fact that the petitioner's registered office was at Hyderabad did not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Telangana High Court.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable before the Telangana High Court on territorial jurisdiction grounds.

---