TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgment and order of the appeal court dated January 15, 2004. Therefore, it would be proper for me to reproduce the exact language of the judgment hereunder: "Therefore, the order impugned (annexure P 62 of the writ petition) is set aside with liberty to the Tax Recovery Officer to exercise his jurisdiction within the scope and ambit of clause (vi) of section 226(3) as discussed above, namely, with regard to the genuineness or the falsity of the objection raised without sitting in appeal on the merits of the objection itself after giving opportunity to SWCL. The appeal thus stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The notices (annexures P 29 to P 34 of the writ petition) issued to APBCL and the other debtors of SWCL (respondents Nos. 9 to 18) under section 226(3) and the order (annexure P 62 of the writ petition) passed by the Tax Recovery Officer on the objection of SWCL under clause (vi) of section 226(3) are hereby quashed subject to the order passed above. Let a writ of certiorari do issue accordingly. The Tax Recovery Officer shall decide the objection of SWCL under section 226(3) (vi) before proceeding under section 226(3) against SWCL in the light of the observa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, Mr. Sarkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that this impugned order has got its origin in the notices under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, which were served within the territorial limit of this court and the order was necessitated to be passed pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench of this court. Had there been no order of this court, perhaps the impugned order would not have been passed. He contends that receiving of notice under section 226(3) and the order passed by this appeal court constitute the integral part of the cause of action. Moreover, if this order is allowed to operate then the effect thereof shall be felt by the petitioner at its place of business at Calcutta. He has drawn my attention to the averment and statement made in para. 62 of the petition. Mr. Sarkar on the merits submits that the Tax Recovery Officer in gross breach of the direction and mandate given by the appeal court failed and neglected to give any opportunity meaning thereby no notice of hearing was given to the petitioner. No opportunity was given to file the statement on oath, as required under section 226(3)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade [1989] 180 ITR 1, 16 (SC) and another decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court reported in [1991] 190 ITR 733. Having heard the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties, at this stage the court is to decide the question of jurisdiction before entering into the merits of this matter. It is the settled position of the law that the jurisdiction of a writ petition is decided not in relation to the place of business and/or office of the respondents alone. This plea is examined in the text of the averment and the statement relating to the cause of action as well, irrespective of the place of business and office of the effective respondents. This has been made clear under article 226, clause (2) itself. Thus it would be apposite to set out the aforesaid portion of the Constitution: "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 Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso in the case of breach of fundamental right. The petitioner here has complained that without giving any hearing or without affording any opportunity in terms of the appeal court judgment the impugned order has been passed. It is true also that the officer concerned has dealt with the matter on the merits but admittedly the order was passed without hearing the writ petitioner. Therefore, I hold that this writ petition should be entertained by this court, by reason of the fact that the appeal court has asked the Tax Recovery Officer to hear the writ petitioner and to give him an opportunity. From the records I do not find that the Tax Recovery Officer had given any notice for hearing of this matter. The notice served which has been annexed to the petition shows that he wanted information from the writ petitioner whether the decree had become executable or not. This notice does not make any whisper about his intention to hear the matter in terms of the appeal court's judgment. The learned Additional Solicitor General contends that pointing out the recording of the Tax Recovery Officer that there was no statement on oath taking objection as required under section 226(3), clause (v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
