Income-tax---

----Jurisdiction---Territorial jurisdiction of High Court---Meaning of cause of action---Orders of assessment and order rejecting application for rectification of mistakes issued by CIT of Haryana ---Order by CIT pursuant to authorisation by C.B.D.T.---Delhi High Court, has no jurisdiction to consider writ petitions against orders---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961---Constitution of India, Art. 226.

If a cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a High Court, the writ issued by it can extend and run beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The cause of action is a bundle of facts, which would give the plaintiff a right to relief. Any and every fact, though relevant, would not necessarily be included in the bundle of essential facts constituting cause of action.

On a writ petition in the Delhi High Court against orders of assessment and - order rejecting - an application for rectification of mistakes passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in Haryana:

Held, dismissing the petition, that so far as the impugned orders of the Income-tax authorities situated within the State of Haryana were concerned, no cause of action had arisen to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. The orders had been issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, pursuant to the authorisation made by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Haryana) was again an authority situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The petition did not lie within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The petitioner was attempting to stretch the facts and/or the relief sought for by it' so .as to somehow bring the petition within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi which could not be allowed.

Navin Jindal .v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home (1995) 60 DLm 516 (Delhi); State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289; U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U. P. (1995) 4 SCC 738; AIR 1995 SC 2148 and Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 135; AIR 1984 SC 1264 ref.

Petitioner in person.

Sanjeev Khanna for Respondents

JUDGMENT

The petitioner who, was heard yesterday on the question of admission, has been additionally heard today on his request.

We have also heard learned senior standing counsel for the respondents who has entered appearance on advance notice.

The petitioner is aggrieved by three orders of assessment and rejection of an application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, all orders having been passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle, Gurgaon (respondent No. 7), and three appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Haryana (respondent No. 5).

It appears that on November 20, 1988, there was a search at the petitioners' premises situated at Gurgaon. The matters relating thereto are partly pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax and partly before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in C. W. P. No. 4944 of 1993. So far as the impugned orders of assessment are concerned, the petitioner was issued notices under section 142(I) of the Income-tax Act in response to which he questioned the jurisdiction of respondent No. 7 However, the assessment proceedings were concluded in the absence of the petitioner on March 27, 1998/March 31, 1998, inasmuch as they were time barring cases.,

We asked the petitioner-how was he invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi for seeking setting aside of the orders passed by the authorities of Income-tax situation within the State, of Haryana? The petitioner submitted that he was canvassing his fundamental right and by virtue of article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court had jurisdiction as the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court though the authorities against whom the writ was sought to be issued were situated outside its jurisdiction. On principle, there can be no dispute that if the cause of action arises. With in the jurisdiction of this High Court, the writ issued by it can extend and. run beyond its territorial jurisdiction. However, the question is whether any cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court?

The petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 2 of the petition and submitted that part of the cause of action had arisen to him in Delhi and, therefore, the petition lies here.

In State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties. AIR 1985 SC 1289, their Lordships have held that the cause of action is a bundle of facts, which would give the plaintiff a right to relief. Reference may also be had to U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U. P. (1995) 4 SCC 738. Any and every fact, though relevant, would not necessarily be included in the bundle of essential facts constituting cause of action. We are clearly of the opinion that so far as the impugned orders of the income-tax authorities situated within the State of Haryana are concerned, no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi.

The petitioner placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR AIR 1984 SC 1264, and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Navin Jindal v. Union of India through Secretary? Ministry of Home (1995) 60 DLT 516 (Delhi). None of the decisions advances the plea of the petitioner.

The petitioner also submitted that one of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner was a direction to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi, respondent No. 1, to publish or cause to be published all orders under section 126 of the Act which confer jurisdiction on the authorities of Income-tax though situated within the State of Haryana, which orders affected the rights and liabilities of the taxpayers and this relief was certainly within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. This relief has been added by hand in the prayer clause of the printed petition. Mr. Khanna, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent has pointed out by referring to pages 3054 and 3055 of Income-tax Law by Chaturvedi and Pithisaria, Volume 3, 4th Edition, that so far as the Central Board of Direct Taxes is concerned, all the notifications issued by it are published in the Government Gazette as also in the tax law journals. Thereafter, the authorities empowered by it issues departmental or internal orders distributing the work as amongst the officers within their jurisdiction by reference to areas, persons or class of persons, for proceedings under the Act. So far as the present petitioner is concerned such orders have been issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, pursuant to the authorisation made by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Haryana) is again an authority situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, we are clearly of the opinion that the petition does not lie within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is attempting at stretching the facts and/or the relief sought for by it so as to somehow bring the petition within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi which cannot be allowed..

The petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

M.B.A./3391/FC ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.