TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (1) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the matter. It is sad that the authorities responsible for refund of the amounts due to the petitioner as a direct consequence of orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal denied the refund and the interest thereon without even a semblance of justification. These are the facts. For the assessment year 1979-80, the petitioner was assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 32,50,140. An appeal against the assessment order filed by the assessee having been dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee preferred a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, which by its order dated November 29, 1985, allowed the same and held that the order of assessment suffered from a manifest error....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hose provisions and directing the Assessing Officer to compute the interest thereon and pay the same to the petitioner. There was still no end to the petitioner's troubles. The Assessing Officer, finding that the Department had gone up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), sought and was granted approval of the Commissioner to withhold the refund for two months after the decision of the appeal by the Tribunal. Exasperated by the intransigence of the Assessing Officer, the petitioner approached this court yet again for a writ of mandamus to the Assessing Officer to do what was his clear duty, that is, to give effect forthwith to the order of the Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sdiction of this court. To support his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a few decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court which we shall presently advert to. For a decision on the respondent's objection, it will be convenient to have a look at clause (2) of article 226 of the Constitution which provides : " (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 214 provides for payment of interest where, as a result of an order passed, inter alia, under section 254, the interest payable under sub-section (1) of that provision is increased. In the present case, interest became payable to the petitioner as a consequence of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, allowing the assessee's appeal and rectifying the order passed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of the amount mentioned above which was held refundable to the petitioner. The assessee thus became entitled to payment of interest as a direct consequence of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. This position was not disputed by learned standing counsel representing the Department. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to examine the facts to determine whether the cause of action, either wholly or in part, on which the petitioner claims relief under article 226 of the Constitution arose within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises powers. We have already demonstrated that in the present case, an important part of the cause of action arose within the territories of the State. We begin with the first case cited on behalf of the Revenue Daya Shanker Bhardwaj v. Chief of the Air Staff, AIR 1988 All 36. This case is of no assistance as not only was the authority against which directions were sought based outside the State, but the relief claimed was founded on an order made and action taken by such authority wholly outside the State....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lcutta High Court with jurisdiction tinder article 226 of the Constitution. The case is wholly distinguishable. In the context of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, the service of notice on the owner of the land in the State of West Bengal was held not to constitute cause of action sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Calcutta High Court. As mentioned above, the question as to the jurisdiction of a High Court shall have to be examined on the facts of each case viewed in the light of the legal provisions based on which relief is claimed tinder article 226 of the Constitution. Whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises powers shall depend on the facts taken ....