Tharu And Sons vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Tharu & Sons, filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenging proceedings initiated by the Government of Karnataka, Department of Commercial Taxes. These proceedings, evidenced by Ext.P9 and Ext.P11, sought to recover Rs. 2,27,262/- from the petitioner towards interest on belated GSTR-3B filings for August 2017 to March 2018. The notices were issued to the petitioner at their Bangalore address. The petitioner argued that since recovery proceedings were being initiated against them within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court, the petition was maintainable. The recovery was sought from the petitioner's bank account maintained with the 2nd respondent bank, South Indian Bank, at its Palarivattom branch in Ernakulam, Kerala.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable before the Kerala High Court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the petitioner, Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and others. In the cited case, the Supreme Court found that a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court because notices were served on the appellant at his place of residence there. In contrast, the present proceedings (Exts.P9 and P11) were instituted by the Government of Karnataka and issued to the petitioner at their Bangalore address. The Court reasoned that merely because recovery proceedings are initiated in respect of amounts in a bank account maintained by the petitioner at a bank branch within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Kerala High Court to determine the validity of the proceedings initiated by the Karnataka authorities. The Court explicitly stated that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to decide the issues.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Kerala High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings initiated by the Government of Karnataka, when the recovery is sought from a bank account located within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner contended that the writ petition is maintainable before the Kerala High Court because the recovery proceedings are being initiated against them within the Court's territorial jurisdiction. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and others to support their argument that a part of the cause of action arose within the Court's jurisdiction. The petitioner also asserted that they have a substantial case on merits. The revenue (Government of Karnataka) argued, implicitly through the Court's reasoning, that the proceedings were instituted by the Government of Karnataka and issued to the petitioner at their Bangalore address. The Court noted that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings initiated by the department.
Sections Cited
IGST Act, CGST Act, SGST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by proceedings initiated against the petitioner to recover certain amounts due from the petitioner towards interest on belated filing of GSTR-3B returns for the period from August 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P9 proceedings through which a notice has been issued to the 2nd respondent bank to effect recovery of a sum of Rs.2,27,262/- towards interest payable under the provisions of the IGST/CGST/SGST Acts, 2017 by the petitioner. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P11, through which it has been decided that the petitioner is liable to pay interest. A perusal of Exts.P9 and P11 will show that these proceedings have been instituted by the Government of Karnataka in the Department of Commercial Taxes. These notices have also been issued to the petitioner at their local address in Bangalore.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the recovery proceedings are being initiated against the petitioner within the juri iction of this Court, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings by filing the present writ petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and others [2014 KHC 4507] to contend that the present writ petition is maintainable before this Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner has a substantial case on merits.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent bank, I am of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. The facts of the WP(C) NO. 27383 OF 2022 3 case in Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) indicate that, that was a case where the appellant was working in the Shipping Corporation of India. He was declared permanently unfit for sea service due to certain health issues and his registration as a Seaman was cancelled. The appellant in that case was a native of Bihar and he had raised a demand for settlement of certain financial claims on cancellation of registration as a Seaman while at his place of residence in Bihar. Those claims were responded to or replied to by authorities and these notices etc. were served on the appellant therein at his place of residence within the juri iction of the Patna High Court. It is in these circumstances that the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that at least a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial juri iction of the Patna High Court. As already noticed, both Exts.P9 and P11 proceedings have been instituted by the Government of Karnataka in the Commercial Taxes Department and were issued to the petitioner at its local address in Bangalore. It also appears that the petitioner has taken part of the proceedings initiated by the department as is evident from Ext.P11. Merely because the recovery proceedings are initiated in respect of amounts in a bank account maintained by the petitioner at the 2 nd respondent bank at its Palarivattom branch does not mean that this Court has territorial juri iction to determine the validity of Exts.P9 and P11. The writ petition is therefore dismissed holding that this Court lacks territorial juri iction, to decide the issues. GOPINATH P. JUDGE okb/25.10.22 //// P.S. to Judge
WP(C) NO. 27383 OF 2022 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.