Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (3) TMI 683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and premised on such a finding, to dismiss the applications? HELD THAT:- The High Court, while delivering the impugned judgment and order, proceeded to hold that the writ petitioners were aggrieved not only by the impugned notification issued by the appellant under the GGST Act but also by the act of the Central Government in issuing the impugned notifications under the CGST Act as well as the IGST Act seeking to levy tax (GST) on lotteries organized, promoted and conducted by the State of Sikkim. The High Court further noted that it was not the actual incidence of GST under the GGST Act which is impugned in the writ petitions but the provisions of law made by the Parliament as well as the respective State Governments including the State of Goa by which they sought to levy GST on lotteries. Considering the prayers made in the writ petition, the High Court was further of the view that, at least, a part of the cause of action had arisen with its jurisdiction. This is a case where clause (2) of Article 226 has been invoked by the High Court to clothe it with the jurisdiction to entertain and try the wri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Singh, Adv Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is one of multiple respondents in W.P.(C) No. 36 of 2017, W.P.(C) No. 38 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 59 of 2017, pending on the file of the High Court of Sikkim (hereafter the High Court , for short). Separate applications in the said three writ petitions were filed by the appellant seeking its deletion from the array of respondents. The appellant had pleaded in the said applications that, inter alia, a notification issued by it was under challenge in the writ petitions and that if, at all, such notification could be made a subject matter of challenge, the High Court of Bombay at Goa is the appropriate court where remedy ought to be pursued. According to the appellant, a notification issued under a statute enacted by a State legislature cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny within the jurisdiction of a high court of a different State, more so when no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of that high court. It was further pleaded that since no part of the cause of action for invocation of the writ jurisdiction had arisen within the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dditional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India as well as counsel for the other appearing parties. 9. For the purpose of a decision on these appeals, the petition averments in W.P.(C) No. 38 of 2017 may be noticed. A private limited company, engaged in the business of purchase and sale of lottery tickets run, conducted and organized by the Government of Sikkim both within the State of Sikkim as well as outside the State , is the writ petitioner. The petitioning company sells lottery tickets in the States of Sikkim, Punjab, Goa and Maharashtra. It is the pleaded case that the lottery tickets, which are supplied by the petitioning company, are lotteries which is being run by the State Government of Sikkim, it is not a lottery authorized by the State Government requiring to discharge GST under a higher rate of taxation of 28% . The case sought to be set up is that if the distinction between (L)ottery run by State Governments and (L)ottery authorized by State Governments were made, as has been done by the impugned notification, the same would be ex facie illegal and result in wiping out competition. 10. The prayers in W.P.(C) No. 38 of 2017 are to the followin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und had been set up by the appellant for deletion; hence, the interim applications seeking deletion stood dismissed. 12. In support of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain and try the writ petition, this is what the petitioning company has stated: 29. That his Hon ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition as the cause of action arises in Sikkim only. Both the Petitioner and the Respondents are located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon ble High Court. Apart from these two sentences, nothing more has been averred in support of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. 13. From the above, it is clear that according to the petitioning company the cause of action has arisen in Sikkim only, meaning thereby the whole of the cause of action and not part of it; additionally, it is stated that all the respondents are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court which is factually incorrect. 14. While dealing with an objection as to lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition on the ground that the cause of action has not arisen within its jurisdiction, a high court essentially has t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s jurisdiction. Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. These are the guiding tests. 16. Here, tax has been levied by the Government of Goa in respect of a business that the petitioning company is carrying on within the territory of Goa. Such tax is payable by the petitioning company not in respect of carrying on of any business in the territory of Sikkim. Hence, merely because the petitioning company has its office in Gangtok, Sikkim, the same by itself does not form an integral part of the cause of action authorizing the petitioning company to move the High Court. We hold so in view of the decision of this Court in National Textile Corporation Ltd. vs. Haribox Swalram (2004) 9 SCC 786 . The immediate civil or evil consequence, if at all, arising from the impugned notification is that the petitioning company has to pay tax @ 14% to the Government of Goa. The liability arises for the specific nature of business carried on by the petitioning company within t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates