Incaseofnon-Compliancerecoveryproceedings As Per The Income Tax Act, 1961 Shallbe Initiated Accordingly." v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR Tecpro Systems LimitedRep. by its Authorised Signatory/Principal Officer Mr.VenugopalanTecpro Towers, 11-A17, 5th Cross StreetSIPCOT IT ParkSiruseri, Chennai - 603 103...Appellant/Petitioner-vs- The Union of IndiaRep. by the Office of the Asst. Commn. Of Income TaxR.No.307, 3rd Street, Aayakar BhawanLaxmi NagarNew Delhi - 110 092...Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent, against the order of this Court dated 22.02.2016 inW.P.No.3611 of 2016. Writ Petition filed under Article 226of the constitution of India praying to issue a writ ofMandamus directing the respondent not to take any coercive orany other steps against the petitioner company herein whichis under the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction(BIFR) as per the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies Act1985 (SICA) invoking the provisions of Income Tax (IT) Act1961 pursuant to F.No.ACIT/ Circle-76(1)/ U/s.201(1)/ (1A)/2015-16/ TAN: DELTO3519F dated 20.1.2016 issued by therespondent to the petitioner herein pending disposal of theBIFR proceedings. For respondent : Mr.J.Narayanasamy Sr.Standing Counsel JUDGMENT S.Manikumar, J. Challenge in this appeal is to an order of the writcourt, made in W.P.No.3611/2016 dated 22.02.2016, by which,the writ court, declined to entertain the writ petion, on thegrounds of territorial jurisdiction. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner TecproSystem Limited is a public limited company and represented byits Authorised Signatory/Principal Officer at Chennai. Prayersought for in the writ petition was for a mandamus directingtheAssistantCommissionerofIncomeTax,NewDelhi/respondent, not to take any coercive or any other stepsagainst the petitioner, which is under the Board forIndustrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), as per theprovisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (SICA),by invoking the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961,pursuant to a proceeding dated 20.01.2016 issued by therespondent. 3. Proceedings dated 20.01.2016 of the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi reads as follows:" To The Principal Officer,M/s.Tecpro System Ltd.,202-204, Pacific Square MallJMD CampusSector-15, Gurgaon Sub:- Assessee deemed to be an assessee indefault u/s 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- reg. Please refer the above In this regard, it has been observed thatduring the course of survey operation u/s 133A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.01.2016 in yourcase at the above mentioned premises, you havededucted TDS amount of Rs.17,43,74,191/- for theF.Y.2013-14, F.Y.2014-15 and F.Y.2015-16, whichhas not been deposited into the Govt A/c tilldate. In view of the same, you are hereby held asan assessee deemed to be in default u/s 201 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, you arerequired to discharge this TDS liability ofRs.17,13,74,191/-andinterestofhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Rs.5,31,87,872/- (approx.) u/s 201(1A) of Income TaxAct,totallingtoRs.22,45,62,063/-immediately. Incaseofnon-compliancerecoveryproceedings as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 shallbe initiated accordingly." In view of the same, you are hereby held asan assessee deemed to be in default u/s 201 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, you arerequired to discharge this TDS liability ofRs.17,13,74,191/-andinterestofhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Rs.5,31,87,872/- (approx.) u/s 201(1A) of Income TaxAct,totallingtoRs.22,45,62,063/-immediately. Incaseofnon-compliancerecoveryproceedings as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 shallbe initiated accordingly." 4. Contention of the writ petitioner is that TDS isdeducted at Chennai and their office is located at Chennai.Therefore, when part of the cause of action has arisen withinthe territorial jurisdiction of this court, writ petition ismaintainable. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of theHon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union ofIndia and Anr. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 207, Union of Indiavs. Adani Exports reported in (2002) 1 SCC 567, Oil andNatural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. reported in(1994) 4 SCC 711 and whereas the respondent, while opposingthe maintainability of the writ petition, submitted that theorder dated 20.01.2016 passed by the respondent is at NewDelhi, the Delhi High Court alone has jurisdiction toentertain the writ petition. Reliance has been made to adecision in Rajkumar Mangla v. Chairman, Central Board ofDirect Taxes and others reported in (1998) 234 ITR 0113. 5. Writ court also considered a decision in Kusum Ingots& Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and another resported in 2004(6) SCC 254, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held asfollows: "30. We must, however, remind ourselves thateven if a small part of cause of action ariseswithin the territorial jurisdiction of the HighCourt, the same by itself may not be considered tobe a determinative factor compelling the HighCourt to decide the matter on merit. Inappropriate cases, the court may refuse toexercise its discretionary jurisdiction byinvoking the doctrine of forum convenience." 6. Going through the material on record, writ court inW.P.No.3611/2016 dated 22.02.2016 at paragraphs 5 to 7 orderedas follows: "5. On a careful consideration of thematerials available on record and the submissionsmade by the learned counsel on either side, itcould be seen that the writ petition has been filedpursuant to the order dated 20.01.2016 passed bythe respondent at New Delhi. Though the prayersought for is for the issuance of a writ ofmandamus, the learned counsel appearing for therespondent submitted that no record is available inChennai office and all the records are only in NewDelhi office. The learned senior counsel appearingfor the petitioner submitted that the petitioner ishttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/an assessee only in the New Delhi office and not at Chennai. The petitioner also submitted their IncomeTax Returns only at New Delhi office and not atChennai office. Merely because the petitioner ishaving an office at Chennai the same will notconfer territorial jurisdiction to this Court toentertain the writ petition. That apart, deductingTDS by the petitioner at Chennai will not conferterritorial jurisdiction at Chennai. When thepetitioner is an assessee in the office of theIncome Tax Department at New Delhi, only the Courtsat New Delhi shall have jurisdiction. The ratiolaid down in the judgment of the Honourable SupremeCourt reported in 2002 (1) SCC 567 [Union of Indiaand others v. Adani Exports Ltd. and another] isagainst the contentions raised by the petitioner inrespect of territorial jurisdiction. Chennai. The petitioner also submitted their IncomeTax Returns only at New Delhi office and not atChennai office. Merely because the petitioner ishaving an office at Chennai the same will notconfer territorial jurisdiction to this Court toentertain the writ petition. That apart, deductingTDS by the petitioner at Chennai will not conferterritorial jurisdiction at Chennai. When thepetitioner is an assessee in the office of theIncome Tax Department at New Delhi, only the Courtsat New Delhi shall have jurisdiction. The ratiolaid down in the judgment of the Honourable SupremeCourt reported in 2002 (1) SCC 567 [Union of Indiaand others v. Adani Exports Ltd. and another] isagainst the contentions raised by the petitioner inrespect of territorial jurisdiction. 6. As per Article 226(2) of the Constitutionof India the power conferred by clause (1) to issuedirections, orders or writs to any Government,authority or person may also be exercised by anyHigh Court exercising jurisdiction in relation tothe territories within which the cause of action,wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of suchpower, notwithstanding that the seat of suchGovernment or authority or the residence of suchperson is not within those territories. Similarlyunder Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, asuit can be instituted where the defendants resideor cause of action arises. Under Section 20(b)every suit shall be instituted in a Court withinthe local limits of whose jurisdiction any of thedefendants, where there are more than one, at thetime of the commencement of the suit, actually orvoluntarily resides, or carries on business orpersonally works for gain, provided that in suchcase either the leave of the Court is given, or thedefendants who do not reside, or carry on businessor personally work for gain, as aforesaid,acquiesce in such institution. Under Section 20(c),a suit shall be instituted in a Court where thecause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In thecase on hand, the respondent at Chennai has notparticipated in any of the action of thepetitioner. Though the petitioner had deducted TDS,the same has been remitted only to the Income TaxOffice at New Delhi. When the respondent has norole to play in the acts of the respondent atChennai, there is no cause of action arise forfiling the writ petition at Chennai. Mr.P.S.Raman,learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner, fairly submitted that it cannot be saidthat Delhi High Court shall not have jurisdictionhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/to entertain the writ petition. Since there is no cause of action, either wholly or in part, occurredat Chennai, this Court has no jurisdiction toentertain the writ petition filed by thepetitioner. 7. The petitioner having an office at Chennaishall not confer territorial jurisdiction atChennai. That apart, the learned counsel appearingfor the respondent also submitted that since norecords are available in Chennai office, they haveto get all instructions only from New Delhi officein respect of the relief sought for in the writpetition. Since no part of cause of action hasarisen at Chennai, I am of the view that this Courthas no territorial jurisdiction to entertain thewrit petition. In these circumstances, thejudgments relied upon by the learned senior counselappearing for the petitioner are not applicable tothe petitioner's case. Since the writ petition isbeing decided on the question of territorialjurisdiction, I am not going into the merits of thecase. In these circumstances, the writ petitionfiled by the petitioner is rejected on the groundofterritorialjurisdiction.Nocosts.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition isclosed." 7. Assailing the correctness of the order and invitingthe attention of this court to the proceedings of theRegistrar, Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstructiondated 14.07.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellantsubmitted that a case has been registered under Section 15(1)of the Sick Industrial Companies (Provisions) Act, 1985, thepetitioner/appellant has a legal right to claim protectionunder the provisions of the said Act. Placing reliance on thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raheja UniversalLimited v. NRC Limited and others reported in (2012) 4 SCC148, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submittedthat when BIFR proceedings are pending, coercive action takenby the respondent vide order dated 20.01.2016 would amount toinfringement of the right, by the respondent and thattherefore there is a direct nexus to the limited relief ofmandamus sought for in the writ petition and in suchcircumstances, writ petition ought to have been entertained. 8. Inviting the attention of this court to thecertificate dated 03.02.2016 of the Chartered Accountant,Madras, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submittedthat the books of accounts of M/s.Tecpro Systems Limited aremaintained at their Chennai office for Material Handlingdivision and at their Pune office for Ash handling divisionand TDS is deducted from the respective locations. Accordingto him, from the Financial Year 2014-2015 onwards, most TDSpayments are made out of bank accounts maintained at Chennai.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/A statutory audit of the company is carried out at Chennai from the Financial Year 2013-2014 and in the light of theabove, he contended that part of cause of action has arisenwithin the territorial jurisdiction of this court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant furthersubmitted that the coercive enforcement measures would bedirectly taken only against Chennai premises, where the bankaccounts are maintained, assets and properties are situatedwithin the jurisdiction of this court and not against theirDelhi office CES and before when a legal right is infringed,by a coercive action, writ petition is maintainable. Placingreliance on Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India and Anr.reported in (2006) 6 SCC 207, Union of India vs. Adani Exportsreported in (2002) 1 SCC 567, Oil and Natural Gas Commissionvs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711,learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant further submittedthat even if a part of or fraction of cause of action ariseswithin the territorial jurisdiction of this court, writ ismaintainable. He also submitted that the seat of therespondent is irrelevant to entertain a writ petition. 10. Placing reliance on Union of India and others vs.Adhani Export and another reported in (2002) 1 SCC 567, it isthe submission of the learned counsel for the appellant thatwhen specific averments have been made in the affidavitsupporting the prayer for mandamus, writ court ought to havedecided the issue of territorial jurisdiction de hors thetruth or otherwise of the averments made in the affidavit. Inthis context, he also invited attention of this court to theadditional affidavit filed by writ petitioner wherein, thepetitioner has stated that the company has been functioning inChennai since 2002 onwards and established a full-fledgedCorporate office at Siruseri IT Park, where 70% of thepermanent employees are working. He has also stated that 90%of the payments are processed only at Chennai, as a result ofwhich, books of accounts are maintained at Chennai. TDSdeduction is also made at Chennai. Therefore, a strong nexushas been established between Chennai office and the lisrelating to the subject matter in the notice dated 20.01.2016of alleged non-deposit of TDS amount of Rs.17,30,74,191/- forthe assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16respectively. 11. It is also his contention that though the High Courtof Delhi has jurisdiction to maintain a writ petition, itcannot be contended that the court at Madras has nojurisdiction for the reason that the infringement of right maytake place or threat thereof. Considering the fact that entirerecords and assets are within the jurisdiction of this court,a writ is maintainable and according to him, while dealingwith the maintainability of writ petitions, courts have toconsider principle of jurisdictional equilibrium and if done,the instant writ petition is maintainable. It is also hishttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/submission that the petitioner/appellant has not sought for any writ of certiorari, which may give rise to a plea foropposing the maintainability, whereas, the prayer sought foris for a mandamus directing the respondent, not to take anycoercive measures, as majority of the operations are carriedout only at Chennai and if enforcement proceedings are allowedto continue, it would have a direct impact on the Chennaipremises, which is within the jurisdiction of this court andhence the writ petition is maintainable. 12. Per contra, Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned counsel forthe respondent submitted that the petitioner/appellant is anassessee and allotted a TAN number at Delhi. The writpetitioner had admitted that the principal place of businessis at Delhi and accordingly, TAN No.DELT03519F has beenallotted. Survey has been conducted at the principal office atDelhi and it was found that the petitioner/appellant haddeducted at source with respect to certain payments and notpaid over to the company. He also submitted that consequent tothe survey, a demand notice dated 20.01.2016 was sent to thepetitioner/appellant. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submittedthatinresponsetothedemandnotice,thepetitioner/appellant, has sent a reply. According to him, mereexistence of an office and operations at Chennai would notgive rise to a cause of action for filing a writ petitionwithin the jurisdiction of this court, as the assessee itselfhad admitted the place of principal office and place ofbusiness at Delhi and accordingly TAN number has been allottedat Delhi. In such circumstances, de hors the above,petitioner/appellant cannot be permitted to contend that thiscourt has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition. Surveyand issue of demand notice has been done from Delhi. Accordingto him, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India andanother resported in 2004 (6) SCC 254 would lend support tothe case of the respondent. He stated that, if at all thepetitioner/appellant is aggrieved over the order, writpetition, challenging the same can be filed only within whosejurisdiction, the cause of action arose. 14. For the above said reasons, he submitted that thereis no error in the order impugned before this court and prayedfor dismissal of the writ appeal. 15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe materials on record. 16.Fact that the writ petitioner M/s.Tecpro SystemLimited, 202-204, Pacific Square Mall, JMD Campus, Sector-15,Gurgaon, has been issued with Tan number at Delhiviz.TANDELT03519F has not been disputed. Survey operationunder Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has beenconducted on 20.01.2016 at No.202-204, Pacific Square Mall,https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/JMD Campus, Sector-15, Gurgaon, and the same has also not been disputed. Proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, IncomeTax, New Delhi dated 20.01.2016 reads as follows:" To The Principal Officer,M/s.Tecpro System Ltd.,202-204, Pacific Square MallJMD CampusSector-15, Gurgaon Sub:- Assessee deemed to be an assessee indefault u/s 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- reg. Please refer the above 16.Fact that the writ petitioner M/s.Tecpro SystemLimited, 202-204, Pacific Square Mall, JMD Campus, Sector-15,Gurgaon, has been issued with Tan number at Delhiviz.TANDELT03519F has not been disputed. Survey operationunder Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has beenconducted on 20.01.2016 at No.202-204, Pacific Square Mall,https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/JMD Campus, Sector-15, Gurgaon, and the same has also not been disputed. Proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, IncomeTax, New Delhi dated 20.01.2016 reads as follows:" To The Principal Officer,M/s.Tecpro System Ltd.,202-204, Pacific Square MallJMD CampusSector-15, Gurgaon Sub:- Assessee deemed to be an assessee indefault u/s 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- reg. Please refer the above In this regard, it has been observed thatduring the course of survey operation u/s 133A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.01.2016 in yourcase at the above mentioned premises, you havededucted TDS amount of Rs.17,43,74,191/- for theF.Y.2013-14, F.Y.2014-15 and F.Y.2015-16, whichhas not been deposited into the Govt A/c tilldate. In view of the same, you are hereby held asan assessee deemed to be in default u/s 201 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, you arerequired to discharge this TDS liability ofRs.17,13,74,191/-andinterestofRs.5,31,87,872/- (approx.) u/s 201(1A) of IncomeTaxAct,totallingtoRs.22,45,62,063/-immediately.Incaseofnon-compliancerecoveryproceedings as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 shallbe initiated accordingly." "Summon to Assessee/witness u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 To, The Principal Officer,M/s.Tecpro System Ltd.,202-204, Pacific Square MallJMD CampusSector-15, Gurgaon Sir/Madam, Whereas, your attendance is required inconnection with the assessment proceedings underthe Income Tax ACt, 1961 in the case ofM/s.Tecpro System Limited, 202-204, PacificSquare Mall, JMD Campus, Sector-15, Gurgaon. Youhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/are hereby required personally to attend my office at Room No.307, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan,Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110092 on 28.01.2016 at11.30 a.m, thereto give evidence and/or toproduce either personally or through anauthorised representative the books of accountsor other documents specified below and not todepart until you receive my permission to do so. Without prejudice to the provision so of anyother law for the time being in force, if youintentionally omit to so attend and give evidenceor to produce the books of accounts/or documents,a penalty for a sum, which shall not be less thanRs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) but whichmay be extended to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees TenThousand only) for each such default or failure,shall be imposed upon you under Section 272A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 17. In response to the above, the petitioner/appellanthas sent an e-mail dated 20.01.2016, which is extracted hereunder: "Dear sirs/Madam,Kind Attn: Ms.Sudha YadavAsst. Commr. IT With reference to your visit to our Gurgaonoffice today on 20.01.2016 and subsequentdiscussions had with you, as desired by you thedocuments were submitted to you and the left outdocuments if any shall be sent to you shortly. As regards the payment plan against TDSliability, we would like to bring your kind noticethat considering the present financial situationbeing faced by the company, we are not in aposition to remit the money immediately, as we arenot getting any payment from the customers.However, we will be giving the cheque of Rs.25.00lacs which may please be withheld for 3/4 days andby tis time we shall be sending the amount by RTGSand shall take back the cheque of Rs.25.00 lacs. As regards the balance payment plan, it maykindly be noted that considering the present cashflow problem faced by the company, the proposalfor balance payment needs to be discussed with allrespective departments/customers and shall revertback to you in 10/15 days. As regards the payment plan against TDSliability, we would like to bring your kind noticethat considering the present financial situationbeing faced by the company, we are not in aposition to remit the money immediately, as we arenot getting any payment from the customers.However, we will be giving the cheque of Rs.25.00lacs which may please be withheld for 3/4 days andby tis time we shall be sending the amount by RTGSand shall take back the cheque of Rs.25.00 lacs. As regards the balance payment plan, it maykindly be noted that considering the present cashflow problem faced by the company, the proposalfor balance payment needs to be discussed with allrespective departments/customers and shall revertback to you in 10/15 days. Alternatively, we shall also propose certaincustomers from where we have to get major paymenthttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/and the liability against TDS amount may please be collected from our customers directly on ourbehalf. As this issue needs to be discussed withour Project/Tech. Deptt., we request you to kindlybear with us and we shall resolve the pendingliability as early as possible. It may kindly be noted that our company hasbeen registered under sick, Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the same wascommunicated to you vide our letter TSL/BIFR/15-16/ dated 21.09.2015. With due respect, we would also like tohighlight over here that during the course ofoperation of the business, our various customershave deducted TDS to the extent of Rs.13.83 Cr.during the period 13-14 & 14-15 and the break upof the amount is as under:Financial Year 13-14 Rs.8,05,92,722/-Financial Year 14-15 Rs.5,78,00,334/-Total Rs.13,83,93,056/- For the Financial year 15-16, for the period up toDecember, sizable amount has been deducted by thecustomers and the details is being obtained. It isalso evident from the recores that the company hasincurred huge loss during the last two financialyear and amount so deducted and deposited by ourvarious customers shall be applied for refund asper the provisions of the IT Act. In view of theabove facts, we would request you not to initiateany action or proceedings.Thanking you,For Tecpro Systems Limited 18. Reading of the reply by mail dated 20.01.2016 showsthat the petitioner/appellant has admitted that they wouldgive a cheque for Rs.25.00 lacs, which may be withheld for 3/4days and by that time, they would send the amount by RTGS andtake back the cheque. They have also expressed cash flowproblem. Registration of the company under the Sick IndustrialCompanies (Special Provisions) Act, 1955 and the communicationof BIFR has been brought to the notice of the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. On the above facts, letus consider the decisions relied on by the learned counsel forthe rival parties. 19. In Union of India and others vs. Adhani Export andanother reported in (2002) 1 SCC 567, the principalcontenteion involved was to the entitlement of the respondentstherein, to the benefit of the Passport scheme found inhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/paragraph 54 of the Import Export Policy introduced by the 19. In Union of India and others vs. Adhani Export andanother reported in (2002) 1 SCC 567, the principalcontenteion involved was to the entitlement of the respondentstherein, to the benefit of the Passport scheme found inhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/paragraph 54 of the Import Export Policy introduced by the Government of India, in relation to certain credits to begiven on export of shrimps. High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad, granted reliefs. On appeal to the Hon'ble SupremeCourt, it was contended by Union of India/appellants that HighCourt at Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction to entertain specialcivil applications, as no part of cause of action arose withinthe territorial jurisdiction of High Court at Ahmedabad. Onthe facts and circumstances, the High Court observed that therespondents therein carried on business of export and importfrom Ahmedabad. Orders for export and import placed from anexecutor from Ahmedabad. The documents and paymens for exportand import were sent/made at Ahmedabad. The credit of dutyclaimed in respect of exports were received at Ahmedabad andpayments were also received at Ahmedabad. Non-granting anddenial of utilisation of the credit in the passbook wouldaffect the business of the petitioners at Ahmedabad,respondents 1 to 3 in the civil applications have Regionaloffices at Ahmedabad, substantial cause of action has arisenwithin the jurisdiction of the said court. The objection ofUnion of India/appellant before the Apex court was thatpassport licence was issued at Chennai, the designatedauthority was at Chennai, the transaction concerned was madefrom Chennai port and therefore the cause of action arose atChennai. On the above facts and circumstances, the Hon'bleApex court in Adhani Export Limited's case at paragraph Nos.16and 17 held as follows: "16. It is clear from the aboveconstitutional provision that a High Court canexercise the jurisdiction in relation to theterritories within which the cause of action,wholly or in part, arises. This provision in theConstitution has come up for consideration in anumber of cases before this Court. In this regard,it would suffice for us to refer to theobservations of this court in the case of Oil andNatural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (SCC atp.713) wherein it was held: "Under Article 226 a High Court can exercisethe power to issue directions, orders or writs forthe enforcement of any of the fundamental rightsconferred by Part III of the Constitution or forany other purpose if the cause of action, whollyor in part, had arisen within the territories inrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction,notwithstanding that the seat of the Government orauthority or the residence of the person againstwhom the direction, order or writ is issued is notwithin the said territories. The expression 'causeof action' means that bundle of facts which thepetitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitlehim to a judgment in his favour by the court.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take allthe facts pleaded in support of the cause ofaction into consideration albeit without embarkingupon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwiseof the said facts. Thus the question ofterritorial jurisdiction must be decided on thefacts pleaded in the petition, the truth orotherwise of the averments made in the petitionbeing immaterial." territorial jurisdiction the court must take allthe facts pleaded in support of the cause ofaction into consideration albeit without embarkingupon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwiseof the said facts. Thus the question ofterritorial jurisdiction must be decided on thefacts pleaded in the petition, the truth orotherwise of the averments made in the petitionbeing immaterial." 17. It is seen from the above that in orderto confer jurisdiction on a High Court toentertain a writ petition or a special civilapplication as in this case, the High Court mustbe satisfied from the entire facts pleaded insupport of the cause of action that those facts doconstitute a cause so as to empower the court todecide a dispute which has, at least in part,arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear fromthe above judgment that each and every factpleaded by the respondents in their applicationdoes not ipso facto lead to the conclusion thatthose facts give rise to a cause of action withinthe court's territorial jurisdiction unless thosefacts pleaded are such which have a nexus orrelevance with the lis that is involved in thecase. Facts which have no bearing with the lis orthe dispute involved in the case, do not give riseto a cause of action so as to confer territorialjurisdiction on the court concerned. If we applythis principle then we see that none of the factspleaded in para 16 of the petition, in ouropinion, falls into the category of bundle factswhich would constitute a cause of action givingrise to a dispute which could confer territorialjurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad." 20. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India andAnother reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254, the appellant companywas registered under the Companies Act with the Registeredoffice at Mumbai. It obtained a loan from Bhopal branch ofState Bank of India. The bank issued notice for repayment.Questioning the vires of Securitisation and Reconstruction ofFinancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002, a writ petition was filed, which was dismissed on theground of lack of jurisdiction. At paragraph 18, the ApexCourt held as follows: "18. The facts pleaded in the writ petitionmust have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayercan be granted. Those facts which have nothing todo with the prayer made therein cannot be said togive rise to a cause of action which would conferjurisdiction on the court."https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/However, at paragraph 30, the Apex Court observed as follows: "30. We must, however, remind ourselves thateven if a small part of cause of action ariseswihtin the territorial jurisdiction of the HighCourt, the same by itself may not be considered tobe a determinative factor compelling the HighCourt to decide the matter on merit. Inappropriate cases, the Court may refuse toexercise its discretionary jurisdiction byinvoking the doctrine of forum convenience." "18. The facts pleaded in the writ petitionmust have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayercan be granted. Those facts which have nothing todo with the prayer made therein cannot be said togive rise to a cause of action which would conferjurisdiction on the court."https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/However, at paragraph 30, the Apex Court observed as follows: "30. We must, however, remind ourselves thateven if a small part of cause of action ariseswihtin the territorial jurisdiction of the HighCourt, the same by itself may not be considered tobe a determinative factor compelling the HighCourt to decide the matter on merit. Inappropriate cases, the Court may refuse toexercise its discretionary jurisdiction byinvoking the doctrine of forum convenience." 21. The above judgment has been decided on the principlethat parliamentary legislation, which receives the assent ofthe President and is published in the official gazette unlessspecifically included, will apply to the entire territory ofIndia. If passing of legislation gives rise to an actualaction, a writ petition, questioning the constitutionalitythreof can be filed in any High court of the country. It isnot so done because the cause of action will arose only whenthe provisions of the Act or some of them, which wereimplemented, shall give rise to civil or evil consequences. Insuch view of the matter, writ petition filed in the High Courtof Delhi was held to be maintainable. At the same time, atparagraph No.30 of the Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court hasalso cautioned forum convenience as here under:"30. We must, however, remind ourselves thateven if a small part of cause of action ariseswihtin the territorial jurisdiction of the HighCourt, the same by itself may not be considered tobe a determinative factor compelling the High Courtto decide the matter on merit. In appropriatecases, the Court may refuse to exercise itsdiscretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrineof forum convenience." 22. In Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India and othersreported in (2014) 9 SCC 329, the appellant therein wassuffering from serious heart muscle disease and breathingproblem, which forced him to go back to his native place inBihar, wherefrom, he had been making all correspondence withregard to his disability, compensation etc. Earlier he wasdeclared as permanently unfit by authority of the respondentCorporation at Mumbai. Appellant therein has approached PatnaHigh Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India andclaimed various benefits including 100% disabilitycompensation. Maintainability of the writ petition was one ofthe objections raised by the respondent, on the ground that nocause of action or even a fraction of cause of action arosewithin the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. Theappellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court contended that hedischarged his duty outside the territory of State of Bihar.One of the facts pleaded by the appellant before the ApexCourt was that he was a permanent resident of Bihar, assertedhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/his rights in the State of Bihar and all the communications with respect to rejection of his claims were made at hisresidential address in the State of Bihar. Thus on the abovefacts and circumstances and taking note of the insertion inclause 1A to Article 226 of the Constitution of India (XVAmendment Act 1963) and subsequently renumbered as Clause 2 bythe Constitution (XLII Amendment Act, 1976), the Hon'ble Apexcourt has observed as hereunder: with respect to rejection of his claims were made at hisresidential address in the State of Bihar. Thus on the abovefacts and circumstances and taking note of the insertion inclause 1A to Article 226 of the Constitution of India (XVAmendment Act 1963) and subsequently renumbered as Clause 2 bythe Constitution (XLII Amendment Act, 1976), the Hon'ble Apexcourt has observed as hereunder: “On a plain reading of the amended provisionsin Clause (2), it is clear that now High Court canissue a writ when the person or the authorityagainst whom the writ is issued is located outsideits territorial jurisdiction, if the cause ofaction wholly or partially arises within thecourt’s territorial jurisdiction. Cause of actionfor the purpose of Article 226 (2) of theConstitution, for all intent and purpose must beassigned the same meaning as envisaged underSection 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Theexpression cause of action has not been definedeither in the Code of Civil Procedure or theConstitution. Cause of action is bundle of factswhich is necessary for the plaintiff to prove inthe suit before he can succeed. In Nawal Kishore Sharma’s case the Apex Court has taken noteof the judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union ofIndia and Another, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254, wherein atparagraph 10 the Apex Court held as follows: “keeping in view the expressions used in clause(2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India,indisputably even if a small fraction of causeof action accrues within the jurisdiction of theCourt, the Court will have jurisdiction in thematter.” 23. In Raheja Universal Ltd. vs. NRC Limited and othersreported in (2012) 4 SCC 148, at paragraph 56, the Hon'bleApex Court held as follows: “BIFR has been vested with wide powersand,being an expert body, is required to performduties and functions of wide-ranged nature. If onelooks into the legislative intent in relation to asick industrial company, it is obvious that BIFRhas to first make an effort to provide anopportunity to the sick industrial company to makeits net worth exceed the accumulated losses withina reasonable time, failing which BIFR has toformulate a scheme for revival of the company,even by providing financial assistance in caseswherein BIFR in its wisdom deems it necessary andfinally only when both these options fail and thepublic interest so requires, BIFR may recommendhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/winding up of the sick industrial company. So long as the scheme is under consideration before BIFRor it is being implemented after being sanctionedand is made operational from a given date, it isthe legislative intent that such scheme should notbe interjected by any other judicial process orfrustrated by the impediments created by thirdparties and even by the management of the sickindustrial company, in relation to the assets ofthe company.” In the above case, the Apex court held that the claim forrecovery of money, could lie or be proceeded with only afterexpress consent of the BIFR. There cannot be quarrel over thesaid position of law. But the question to be decided iswhether a writ would lie, within the jurisdiction of thiscourt. as the scheme is under consideration before BIFRor it is being implemented after being sanctionedand is made operational from a given date, it isthe legislative intent that such scheme should notbe interjected by any other judicial process orfrustrated by the impediments created by thirdparties and even by the management of the sickindustrial company, in relation to the assets ofthe company.” In the above case, the Apex court held that the claim forrecovery of money, could lie or be proceeded with only afterexpress consent of the BIFR. There cannot be quarrel over thesaid position of law. But the question to be decided iswhether a writ would lie, within the jurisdiction of thiscourt. 24. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,recourse that the learned Single Judge ought to haveconsidered is whether the petitioner has a right to adjudicatehis case before BIFR and in the light of the dictum in RahejaUniversal Ltd’s case, the revenue demand could be allowedpending BIFR and in such circumstances, if coercive steps aretaken the assessee's right is likely to be infringed andtherefore, when attention of BIFR proceedings was brought tothe notice, the writ court ought to have entertained the writpetition, as the properties/assets are in Chennai and thus apart of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction ofthis court. It is the submission of the learned counsel thatwhen there is a threat of infringement of a right, and to thatextent facts are pleaded in the petition, as to how cause ofaction has arisen for filing the writ petition within thejurisdiction of this court, the writ court has failed toadvert to the same. 25. In Mansarover Commercial Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. reported in 1994(209) ITR 0715 the registered Office of the company was inGangtok, Sikkim they are carrying on business as CommissionAgents of Cardamon and other agricultural produce, in Sikkim.It had no office or agent outside Sikkim. Income Taxauthorities at Delhi issued notices alleging non-compliance ofSection 282 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Notices were served atDelhi. Assessment proceedings were completed. When the samewere questioned, one of the contentions of the Revenue wasthat the role of cause of action has arisen within thejurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and no part of cause ofaction arose at Sikkim High Court. The above reportedjudgment, relied on by the learned counsel for the departmentsquarely applies to the facts on hand. 26. On the facts and circumstances stated supra, aHon'ble Division Bench of the Sikkim High Court, held that thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/notices issued by the authorities stationed at New Delhi and were served in New Delhi. By whatever, the petitioners feltaggrieved, took place in New Delhi. So, no part of cause ofaction arose in Sikkim. The mere fact that the companies haveRegistered office in Sikkim does not confer jurisdiction onthis court. 26. On the facts and circumstances stated supra, aHon'ble Division Bench of the Sikkim High Court, held that thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/notices issued by the authorities stationed at New Delhi and were served in New Delhi. By whatever, the petitioners feltaggrieved, took place in New Delhi. So, no part of cause ofaction arose in Sikkim. The mere fact that the companies haveRegistered office in Sikkim does not confer jurisdiction onthis court. 27. In Rajendran Chingaravelu vs. R.K. Mishra, AdditionalCommissioner of Income Tax and Others, reported in (2010) 1SCC 457, the appellant therein, who wanted to buy a propertyat Chennai, was carrying cash at Hyderabad Airport, hedisclosed to the security personnel who checked baggage thathe was carrying cash along with Bank Certificate certifyingthe source and withdrawals. At Chennai, the Income TaxInvestigation Wing seized the cash under mahazar. Afterinvestigation, money was returned to him, but withoutinterest. He filed a writ petition in the court of AndhraPradesh seeking action against the Income Tax officials andthe newspapers, claiming compensation and for other reliefs.Objection raised before Andhra Pradesh High Court was thatseizure took place at Chennai, and therefore writ cannot bemaintained at Hyderabad. On maintainability, writ petition wasdismissed. The matter went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court andon the facts and circumstances, at paragraphs 9 and 10, theHon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “9. The first question that arises forconsideration is whether the Andhra Pradesh HighCourt was justified in holding that as theseizure took place at Chennai (Tamil Nadu), theappellant could not maintain the writ petitionbefore it. The High Court did not examinewhether any part of cause of action arose inAndhra Pradesh. Clause (2) of Article 226 makesit clear that the High Court exercisingjurisdiction in relation to the territorieswithin which the cause of action arises whollyor in part, will have jurisdiction. This wouldmean that even if a small fraction of the causeof action (that bundle of facts which gives apetitioner, a right to sue) accrued within theterritories of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court ofthat State will have jurisdiction. 10. In this case, the genesis for theentire episode of search, seizure and detentionwas the action of the security/intelligenceofficials at Hyderabad Airport (in AndhraPradesh) who having inspected the cash carriedby him, altered their counterparts at ChennaiAirport that the appellant was carrying a hugesum of money, and required to be intercepted andquestioned. A part of the cause of actiontherefore clearly arose in Hyderabad. It is alsohttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/to be noticed that the c