Bombay High Court
Arun Kumar Shrivastava vs The Assistant Commissioner, ... on 26 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1 wp3100.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3100 OF 2021
(ARUN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA...VS..THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX OFFICE & OTH.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.S.Chitaley, Advocate for Petitioner.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 26, 2021.
1. Heard.
2. The contention is that the liability stated in
the communication dated 11/08/2021 issued by
respondent No.2 to be due from the petitioner is actually
the liability, if at all it is there, due from the company by
name Abhijeet Projects Ltd., subsequently named as
Pathbreaking Projects Ltd., of which the petitioner was
Director, till the year 2013 and after his resignation in
the year 2013, the petitioner has got nothing to do with
the company and yet, the liability due on account of the
erstwhile company of the petitioner has been sought to
be satisfied by respondent No.2 from the personal
savings account of the petitioner, which is not
permissible in law.
3. As regards the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
the provisions made in Article 226(2) of the Constitution
of India and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
2 wp3100.21
Court in this regard rendered in the cases of (i) Shanti
Devi ..vs.. Union of India, reported in (2020)10 SCC
766, (Para No.20); (ii) Nawal Kishore Sharma ..vs..
Union of India, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329, (iii)
Navinchandra N. Majithia ..vs.. State of Maharashtra,
(2000) 7 SCC 640 and submits that this Court does have
territorial jurisdiction in the matter as part of the cause
of action, which is required to be determined only on the
basis of the averments made in the petition, lies within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
4. We are of the view that there is prima-facie
substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5. Issue notice for final disposal at admission
stage to the respondents, returnable after three weeks.
6. Meanwhile, there shall be ad-interim stay to
the impugned communication subject to the condition
that the amount lying in the subject saving accounts shall
not be withdrawn by the petitioner, until further orders.
7. Authenticated copy of this order be furnished
to the learned counsel for the petitioner with a request to
him to serve the same upon the respondents.
(ANIL S.KILOR,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)
RRaut..
