Madras High Court
M/S.Muthoot Fin Corp Ltd vs Income Tax Settlement Commission on 29 June, 2022
W.P.No.22792 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:29.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.No.22792 of 2019
&
W.M.P.Nos.22354 & 22359 of 2019
M/s.Muthoot Fin Corp Ltd.
A Limited Company
Registered under the Provisions of the
Indian Companies Act, 1956
Represented by its Company Secretary
Mr.T.D.Mathai
Muthoot Center,
Punnen Road, Jacobs Junction,
Trivandrum – 695 039.
Kerala. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Income Tax Settlement Commission,
Additional Bench, Satguru Complex,
640, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),
5th Floor, Kandamkulathy Towers, MG Road,
Cochin – 682 011.
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22792 of 2019
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle,
Trivandrum – 695 003. ...Respondents
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st
respondent contained in the impugned order bearing No.KL/TV51/2017-
18/63/IT dated 19.06.2019, and to quash the same as arbitrary, unjust and
illegal and to consequently direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the application
filed by the petitioner bearing No.KL/TV51/2017-18/63/IT and to pass fresh
orders under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
to as the “Act”) after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus
render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sivaraman R.
For Respondents : Mr.ANR Jaya Prathap
Junior Standing Counsel
ORDER
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would draw attention to a decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in Mulberry Skills Ltd Vs. Settlement
Commission (IT & WT) ([2021] 123 taxmann.com 118 (Madras)), wherein a
writ filed in identical circumstances, challenging an order of the Settlement
Commission, came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner was assessed
before an authority in a different State. In that case the assessee in Karnataka,
whereas, in the present case the Assessing Authority/R3, is in the State of
Kerala.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22792 of 2019
2. The relevant portion of the decision reads as follows:
“7. To sum up the legal position as referred to in the above decision
, the doctrine of dominus litis or doctrine of situs of the appellate Tribunal
do not go together ; and a dominus litis indicates that the suitor has more
than one option , whereas the situs of an Appellate Tribunal refers to only
one High Court wherein the appeal can be preferred . Further , it was
pointed out that situs of a Tribunal may vary from time to time and it could
be Delhi or some other place or hennai as in the case on hand and the
determination of jurisdiction of the High Court should be based on the
relevant Statute and that the Parliament never contemplated to have a
situation of this nature and if the cause of action doctrine is given effect to .
invariably more than one High Court may have jurisdiction , which is not
contemplated .
8. As noted above , the appellant is an assessee on the file of the
third respondent namely the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ,
Company Circle 4 ( 1 ) ( Inv . ) , IV Floor , Kendriya Sadan , Koramangala
, Bangalore . The Appellate Authority , before whom the assessee filed the
appeal is the second respondent herein namely the Commissioner of
Income Tax , Bangalore - III , Bangalore . Therefore , the learned Single
Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition on the ground that due to
lack of territorial jurisdiction , the order passed by the Settlement
Commission did not call for interference .
9.In the light of the above , the writ appeal is dismissed leaving it
open to the appellant to move the High Court of Karnataka if they are so
advised. It is also made clear that the above writ appeal has been dismissed
solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal / writ petition and the merits of the case of the appellant have not
been dealt with in this judgment . No costs . Consequently . the connect - i
CMP is also dismissed .”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22792 of 2019
DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
3. In this matter as well, it open to the petitioner to move the Kerala High
Court, if they are so inclined.
4. This Writ Petition stands dismissed. Connected writ miscellaneous
petitions are closed. No Costs.
29.06.2022
nst
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non speaking Order
Note:- Registry is directed to return the
original impugned order to the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
To
1.Income Tax Settlement Commission,
Additional Bench, Satguru Complex,
640, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),
5th Floor, Kandamkulathy Towers, MG Road,
Cochin – 682 011.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle,
Trivandrum – 695 003.
W.P.No.22792 of 2019
&
W.M.P.Nos.22354 & 22359 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
