R.suryaprakash v. The Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, 640, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07.06.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHW.P.No.3837 of 2019&W.M.P.Nos.4263 & 4265 of 2019 R.Suryaprakash Vs. ...Petitioner 1. The Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, 640, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 034. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Banglore – IV, Bengaluru. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(2) (1), BMTC Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, callingfor the records in PAN: and quash the impugned orderin KA/BL4/2014-15/38/IT dated 22.01.2019 passed by the 1[st]respondent withdrawing the immunity granted by it againstpenalty and prosecution proceedings for the assessment year2012-13 and 2013-14 as illegal arbitrary and devoid of merit. For Petitioner: Mr. Raghav Rajeev Menon For Respondents: Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel ORDER Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counselappearing on behalf of the respondents has raised a preliminaryobjection relating to the maintainability of the writ petitionon the doctrine of forum conveniens. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. She further points out that the substantial cause ofaction agitated by the petitioner has arisen in Karnataka andthe official respondents, that is R2 & R3, the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, are Officers situated in Bangalore. Thus, merearrayal of the Income Tax Settlement Commission as R1 would notvest jurisdiction in this Court as the Settlement Commission isan authority that exercises jurisdiction over matters arisingfrom all Southern States and this constitute an administrativefeature. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of MulberrySkills Ltd. Vs.Settlement Commission (IT & WT) [(2020) 428 ITR136], referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inKusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India [ 2004 (168) ELT(3) SCC]; R.T.Industries Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission[(2018) 98 taxmann.com 236]; West Coast Ingots (P.) Ltd. V. CCE[(2007) 209 ELT 343] has considered an identical issue holdingthat challenge to the proceedings must be raised in the Statewhere the assessing officials are situated. 4. In the above case as well, the petitioner was assessed inKarnataka and the Courts in Madras were held not to haverequisite territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel for thepetitioner would fairly accede to the position as enunciatedabove. 5. In light of the discussion as aforesaid, this writpetition is dismissed. Connected writ miscellaneous petitionsare closed. No Costs. Assistant Registrar(CS III) /True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nst To 1. The Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, 640, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 034. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Banglore – IV, Bengaluru. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(2) (1), BMTC Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru. +1cc to Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.32692 W.P.No.3837 of 2019& W.M.P.Nos.4263 & 4265 of 2019 PL[co]NSK/15/06/2022