Madras High Court
R.Suryaprakash vs The Income Tax Settlement ... on 7 June, 2022
W.P.No.3837 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.No.3837 of 2019
&
W.M.P.Nos.4263 & 4265 of 2019
R.Suryaprakash ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Income Tax Settlement Commission,
Additional Bench,
640, Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Banglore – IV,
Bengaluru.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle - 4(2) (1),
BMTC Building, Koramangala,
Bengaluru. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in PAN:DMSPS5204M
and quash the impugned order in KA/BL4/2014-15/38/IT dated 22.01.2019
passed by the 1st respondent withdrawing the immunity granted by it against
penalty and prosecution proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 and
2013-14 as illegal arbitrary and devoid of merit.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3837 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr. Raghav Rajeev Menon
For Respondents : Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan
Senior Standing Counsel
ORDER
Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents has raised a preliminary objection
relating to the maintainability of the writ petition on the doctrine of forum
conveniens.
2. She further points out that the substantial cause of action agitated
by the petitioner has arisen in Karnataka and the official respondents, that is
R2 & R3, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax, are Officers situated in Bangalore. Thus,
mere arrayal of the Income Tax Settlement Commission as R1 would not
vest jurisdiction in this Court as the Settlement Commission is an authority
that exercises jurisdiction over matters arising from all Southern States and
this constitute an administrative feature.
3. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mulberry Skills Ltd.
Vs.Settlement Commission (IT & WT) [(2020) 428 ITR 136], referring to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd.
Vs. Union of India [ 2004 (168) ELT (3) SCC]; R.T.Industries Vs. Income
Tax Settlement Commission [(2018) 98 taxmann.com 236]; West Coast
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3837 of 2019
Ingots (P.) Ltd. V. CCE [(2007) 209 ELT 343] has considered an identical
issue holding that challenge to the proceedings must be raised in the State
where the assessing officials are situated.
4. In the above case as well, the petitioner was assessed in Karnataka
and the Courts in Madras were held not to have requisite territorial
jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly accede to the
position as enunciated above.
5. In light of the discussion as aforesaid, this writ petition is
dismissed. Connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. No Costs.
07.06.2022
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
nst
To
1.The Income Tax Settlement Commission,
Additional Bench,
640, Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Banglore – IV,
Bengaluru.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3837 of 2019
DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
nst/ska
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle - 4(2) (1),
BMTC Building, Koramangala,
Bengaluru.
W.P.No.3837 of 2019
&
W.M.P.Nos.4263 & 4265 of 2019
07.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
