TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. On or about September 13, 1993, respondent No. 4 issued notices to petitioner No. 1 for filing returns in Moradabad as it is having its registered place of business thereat. Despite repeated representation made by petitioner No. 1 for withdrawal of this notice the said respondent went on insisting to file returns there. Challenging the aforesaid action petitioner No. 1 filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court at its Lucknow Bench and this court passed an order directing the Commissioner of Lucknow to decide the question of jurisdiction as regards filing of returns. Respondent No. 3 in terms of the order of the High Court passed the aforesaid first mentioned impugned order dated April 25, 1994, and held that the Assessing Officer, Moradabad, had got jurisdiction as petitioner No. 1 is having registered office thereat. So petitioner No. 1 should have filed and in future would file returns with appropriate official, respondent No. 4. In spite of the decision no follow up action was taken by any of the officials at Moradabad, the matter was kept pending for two years. Meanwhile, petitioner No. 1 also prayed for recalling of the aforesaid order on the ground that petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....principal place of business of petitioner No. 1 at Calcutta can be treated to be a place of business within the meaning of section 124 of the aforesaid Act or not. He contends that he has misunderstood the law treating the registered office as being principal place of business as mentioned in section 124 of the Act. He submits further that it has been settled authoritatively by the courts in this country that the principal place of business as mentioned and defined in section 124 of the said Act and under the corresponding provisions of the old Act is the place wherefrom the direction and controlling orders are issued, in other words, it is the principal seat of the corporate body. The registered office is not necessarily the controlling office or principal seat. In order to decide the principal place of business for the purpose of section 124 one has to judge and decide which is the place having controlling power and/or seat of the corporate body. These points have not been decided at all. According to him, since day one the returns have been filed with respondent No. 2 at Calcutta as the principal place of business was and still is at Calcutta. Petitioner No. 1 cannot legitimatel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow and pursuant to the order passed by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) the first impugned order has been passed and the second impugned order was also passed subsequently, and the impugned notice. This fact amply demonstrates that the petitioners are forum shopping and they should not be allowed to do so. On the merits he contends that the impugned order has been passed in lawful exercise of jurisdiction as vested with the Commissioner to decide the question of jurisdiction. He rightly or wrongly has come to the conclusion that petitioner No. 1 is having its principal place of business, as spelt in section 124(1) at Moradabad, within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 4. This factual finding should not be upset by this court, as it is not justiciable ordinarily. So, petitioner No. 1 has no option but to furnish returns with him. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is having its registered office at Moradabad. So, the presumption is always that the registered office is the principal place of business. Mere filing of the returns successively before filing the writ petition or during the pendency of the writ petition on the strength o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he registered office. The decision of the said authority is for the time being, a decisive factor in relation to the question of jurisdiction. The plea of jurisdiction is to be decided by the writ court at this stage in the context of the statements, averment and pleadings in the writ petition. It is true the core issue in this case on the merits is whether the principal place of business of the writ petitioner within the meaning of section 124 of the said Act is situate at Moradabad or at Calcutta. Whether the decision of respondent No. 3 in this context is correct or not, will be decided a little later and this has to be examined as to whether such decision was correct on the face of the materials and the statement and averment made by the writ petitioner in their written objection. In the writ petition, in paragraph 3 the petitioner has stated, "it has been filing its income-tax return in Calcutta", where its principal place of business, viz., its corporate office is situated. It has also been averred that the permanent account number (PAN) of petitioner No. 1 under the said Act has been allotted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Calcutta. This statement and averments have not bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner challenged the acquisition proceedings of land situated in the State of Rajasthan, in the Calcutta High Court. In Calcutta, the petitioner received the notice of acquisition. In this context the Supreme Court held that the receipt of notice of the acquisition proceedings by the petitioner at Calcutta did not constitute an integral part of the cause of action. The petitioner was required to prove in the writ petition that the land belonged to the petitioner and this right of holding of land was wrongfully and illegally being taken away and the petitioner was going to lose the land. This was sought to be done in the State of Rajasthan. So, none of the aforesaid bundle of facts, which gave rise to cause of action, occurred within the territorial limit of the Calcutta High Court. In the decision of the Supreme Court cited by Mr. Som reported in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu [1994] 4 SCC 711, it has been held on the facts that the petitioner's reading of the advertisement for submitting tenders in relation to a contract in Calcutta did not constitute cause of action, naturally, the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction. Reading a tender notice in relation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as follows: "... the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, AIR 1985 SC 1289, has pointed out that mere service of notice would not give rise to cause of action unless service of notice was integral part of the cause of action, in other words, service of such notice must give occasion for filing writ petition. For the purpose of accrual of cause of action for filing a writ petition, it is also necessary to make a distinction between actual or apprehended injury to the writ petitioner and indirect effect or remote consequences upon him. Obviously, for giving rise to cause of action for filing a writ petition what is material is whether or not within the territorial limits of the said High Court, there has been any proximate or direct effect upon the petitioner. Indirect or remote result of the impugned cause of the respondents cannot be pleaded for establishing that cause of action, either wholly or in part, had arisen within the territorial limits of a particular High Court." Again in paragraph 10 of the same judgment their Lordships of the Division Bench after considering and discussing the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. Hindu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court (Lucknow Bench) has no nexus with the cause of action in the present writ petition. This writ petition could have been filed in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Income-tax Commissioner, Lucknow, and the Assessing Officer, Moradabad, was situated. The previous writ petition was filed impugning the notice issued at and from the Moradabad office and received by the petitioner at Moradabad and by the said notices petitioner No. 1 had no occasion at that point of time to suffer any loss or injury or prejudice. The mere fact of issuance of notices and receipt thereof by themselves could not constitute integral part of the cause of action, unless they do have direct or proximate effect upon the petitioner's advantage of filing returns at Calcutta. It appears in an unreported decision of this court dated May 30, in Matter No. 634 of 1993 (Ravi Hi-Tech Ltd. v. CIT) the learned single judge of this court while passing the restraint order decided the question of jurisdiction in a case of this nature. It has been held since the petitioner/assessee in that case has already been assessed to tax in Calcutta so part of the cause of action has certainly arisen in Calcutta, so t....