Orchid Mercantiles Private Limited & Anr v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Benami Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad & Ors
High Court
01 Feb 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Orchid Mercantiles Private Limited & Anr v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Benami Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad & Ors
Date of order
01 Feb 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Orchid Mercantiles Private Limited & Anr v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Benami Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad & Ors, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
01.02.2023 Sl no. 14 Ct no. 2 P.M.
WPA 1189 OF 2023
+
CAN 1 of 2023 (Not in the file)
+
CAN 2 of 2023 ( Not in the file)
Orchid Mercantiles Private Limited & Anr. - Vs - Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Benami Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad & Ors.
Mr. Vinay Kr. Shraff, Miss Priya Sarah Paul Ms. Priyanka Sharma
… for the petitioners
Mr. Manmeet Singh Arora (SPP) Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee
… for respondent No. 1
Mr. Shyamal Nath … for Inspecting Officer SAFEM (FOP) & NDPS Act & PBPT Act, Chennai
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition petitioners have challenged the impugned order under Section 24(4)(a)(i) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 dated 23[rd] December, 2022 and subsequent notice dated 12[th] January, 2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation ACIT, Benami Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad.
From record it appears that respondents authorities who have issued impugned
notices/orders and have been impleaded in this writ petition do not have their office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. There are two respondents in the writ petition whose offices are at Hyderabad and Telengana respectively and further impleaded respondent No. 3, whose office has been shown in Chennai.
Considering the aforesaid factual and legal position I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition being WPA 1189 of 2023 for lack of territorial jurisdiction and accordingly the same is dismissed along with CAN 1 of 2023 and CAN 2 of 2023.
However, dismissal of this writ petition will not be a bar for the petitioners to seek remedy before the Court having jurisdiction over the matter.
(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.