https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155508 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was unavailable where the impugned orders originated from authorities in Andhra Pradesh and the material facts showed that the purchase transactions and liability determination occurred there. Because no real part of the cause of action arose in Karnataka, the writ petition could not be entertained by the Karnataka High Court. Prior resort to the Andhra Pradesh High Court and submission to its statutory authorities reinforced that Karnataka jurisdiction was not attracted. en-us Fri, 23 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 18:49:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155508 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was unavailable where the impugned orders originated from authorities in Andhra Pradesh and the material facts showed that the purchase transactions and liability determination occurred there. Because no real part of the cause of action arose in Karnataka, the writ petition could not be entertained by the Karnataka High Court. Prior resort to the Andhra Pradesh High Court and submission to its statutory authorities reinforced that Karnataka jurisdiction was not attracted. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 23 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155508