https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261789 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) extends to a High Court when any part of the cause of action arises within its limits, even if the dispute is otherwise connected to proceedings outside the State. Receipt of the impugned notices at Bengaluru, coupled with the attempted reopening of concluded assessments there and the threatened coercive action, was treated as sufficient to attract jurisdiction. The reasoning aligned Article 226(2) with the broad cause-of-action principle in Section 20(c) CPC. On that basis, the refusal to entertain the writ petition for want of jurisdiction was held unsustainable, and the petition was restored for decision on merits. en-us Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261789 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) extends to a High Court when any part of the cause of action arises within its limits, even if the dispute is otherwise connected to proceedings outside the State. Receipt of the impugned notices at Bengaluru, coupled with the attempted reopening of concluded assessments there and the threatened coercive action, was treated as sufficient to attract jurisdiction. The reasoning aligned Article 226(2) with the broad cause-of-action principle in Section 20(c) CPC. On that basis, the refusal to entertain the writ petition for want of jurisdiction was held unsustainable, and the petition was restored for decision on merits. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261789