Bombay HC Rejects Writ Due to Jurisdictional Limits

Case Details: Trustcap (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer Ward 2(1) - [2025] 173 taxmann.com 635 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
• Ms Kinjal Bhutia for the Petitioner.
• Ms Shilpa Goel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner/assessee filed the instant writ petition challenging the order made under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 by the Income-tax Officer, Kolkata, and the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata. The revenue submitted that the entire cause of action had arisen at Kolkata, and therefore, the Bombay High Court may not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the Income-tax officials in Kolkata issued the impugned order/notices. The case papers and other materials on which the notices are issued are in Kolkata, and the assessee’s assessing authorities are based there.

Thus, a substantial portion of the cause of action has accrued in Kolkata. Applying the principle of forum conveniens, it would be appropriate if the petitioner were relegated to availing of the remedies at Kolkata. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to see the convenience of all the parties before it.

The convenience would include a more appropriate forum, the expenses involved, the law relating to the list, verification of specific facts necessary for just adjudication of controversy, and other ancillary aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken note of.

The cause of action arising within the Court’s jurisdiction does not, by itself, serve as a determining factor that compels the Court to hear the matter while exercising its jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court cannot be entirely oblivious to the concept of forum conveniens.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2321 [Para 17] – Followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Khajoor Singh v. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 532 (para 3)
• Pr. CIT v. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 313/287 Taxman 393 (SC) (para 3)
• Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [2011] 10 taxmann.com 120/199 Taxman 259 (Delhi) (Mag.) (para 3)
• Wills India Insurance Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority [2012] 22 taxmann.com 154 (Bombay) (para 4)
• Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of india AIR 2004 SC 2321 (para 4)
• Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal (1945) 49 CWN 357 (para 10)
• Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagir Sawhany AIR 1941 Cal 1949 (para 10)
• Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage P. Ltd. (1997) CWN 122 (para 10)
• S.S. Jain and Co. v. Union of India [1994] CHN 445 (para 10)
• New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1994 Delhi 126 (para 10)
• Musaraf Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. (2006) 3 SCC 658 (para 12)
• Ambica Industries v. CCE 2007 (213) E.L.T. 323 (para 12).