9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the petitioner. Initially, there was some dispute regarding the purported exercise of the power under which the impugned order dated December 13, 1995, was passed by respondent No. 1. Initially, it was made out that such order was passed under section 269UC(3) of the Income-tax Act, but this mistake was ultimately rectified by respondent No. 1, vide its communication dated February 7, 1996. The dispute regarding mentioning of the section under which the order was passed or its subsequent rectification is not relevant or material for the disposal of this petition. It appears that the petitioner which is a company carrying on business in real estate ownership and development amongst other activities, entered into a written agreement wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 269UC of the Act. It is not disputed by the parties that the details asked for vide the aforesaid communication were not received by respondent No. 1 before December 11, 1995. Consequently, without receiving such details respondent No. 1 passed the order on December 13, 1995, which, as noticed at the outset, has been impugned in this petition. At the outset, the learned advocate for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this petition. Two judgments of the Supreme Court have been referred to and relied upon apart from some other cases (which are not relevant). One is the case of State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, AIR 1985 SC 1289 ; [1985] 3 SCC 217 and the other is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the land under section 52(1) of the Act arose within the State of Rajasthan, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at the Jaipur Bench. The answer to the question whether service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of article 226(2) of the Constitution must depend upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to a cause of action. The notification dated February 8, 1984, issued by the State Government under section 52(1) of the Act became effective the moment it was published in the Official Gazette as thereupon the notified land became vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. It was not necessary for the respondents to plead the service of notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Calcutta could not be said to have got jurisdiction on that ground alone because no part of the cause of action could be considered to have accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. Applying the ratio of these two judgments of the Supreme Court in the light of the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that a part of the cause of action has indeed accrued to the petitioner in Calcutta. The basic difference between the present case and the case of Swaika Properties, AIR 1985 SC 1289, which is very near to our case is that the service of notice upon the petitioners by respondent No. 1 and the communication of the order to it impugned in this petition were both integral parts of the entire process relating to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the case of the former the property is situated and in the case of the latter the main cause of action has accrued. In so far as the court at Calcutta is concerned it also has concurrent jurisdiction along with the courts at Patna and Lucknow because a part of the cause of action has accrued in Calcutta as well and that is the service and communication of the notices upon the petitioner by respondent No. 1 prior to the passing of the impugned order and the service and communication of the impugned order itself upon the petitioner. Undoubtedly, this is an important part of the cause of action because upon issuance of notice alone would depend the discharge of final order under section 269UC of the Act. Sub-section (4) whereof reads as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the cause of action because undoubtedly, the cause of action in the present case has arisen whereupon the impugned order was passed on December 13, 1995. The fact that the impugned order was communicated to the petitioner at Calcutta is an added feature of integral part of the cause of action. With this reasoning, therefore, I hold that the courts at Calcutta have jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Coming to the merits of the case, I find that the petitioner was not afforded adequate and effective opportunity of explaining before respondent No. 1. I refrain from giving any detailed reasons or making any further comments on the matter, because I propose to remand the case to respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration. Suffice it to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
