| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4945 (Mad-HC) INCOME TAX ACT 1961
Section 260A
Even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
|
Appeal (High Court) - Territorial jurisdiction - Settlement application -
Assessee was a resident of Hyderabad in the State of Telangana and aggrieved by the action taken against him by Revenue, whose office was also situated at Hyderabad in the State of Telangana, he made an settlement application in Madras High Court. Held: The reason stated by the assessee for having approached this Court instead of High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad is that the 'seat of authority' of Revenue was situated at Chennai within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this Court. Even if it was assumed that in addition to the High Court of Telangana, this Court would also have territorial jurisdiction, the principle of forum conveniens would come into play as held by the decision in case of C. Ramesh v. The Director General of Police (Order dated 6-6-2013 in W.P. (MD) No. 8790 of 2013). Thus, there does not appear to be any justification to entertain the Writ Petition in this Court.
Followed:C. Ramesh v. The Director General of Police (Order dated 6-6-2013 W.P. (MD) No. 8790 of 2013).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assessee.
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|