https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381807 Where part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, the HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226(2) because the real and substantial connecting factors were in Gujarat. The parties, the property sought to be attached, and the impugned order under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were all linked to Gujarat, so forum convenience favoured the Gujarat High Court. The petition was therefore not entertained in Bombay and the matter was directed to be pursued before the Gujarat High Court. en-us Fri, 14 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:53:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381807 Where part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, the HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226(2) because the real and substantial connecting factors were in Gujarat. The parties, the property sought to be attached, and the impugned order under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were all linked to Gujarat, so forum convenience favoured the Gujarat High Court. The petition was therefore not entertained in Bombay and the matter was directed to be pursued before the Gujarat High Court. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 14 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381807