Writ petitions were filed challenging assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, 1961, notices of demand under section 156 and notices for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1). The Department raised a primary objection that the writ petitions could not be entertained by the Court as the situs of the jurisdictional Assessing Officers were outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi and hence beyond the territorial limits of the court. The issue being complexity of legal issues, the matter referred to larger Bench on following questions:
1.Whether the Delhi High Court had the territorial jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petitions when the permanent account number Assessing Officer/jurisdictional Assessing Officer was located outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi,
11.Whether the court, assuming it had jurisdiction, should refuse to exercise jurisdiction under article 226 applying the doctrine of forum non convenience if the permanent account number Assessing Officer/jurisdictional Assessing Officer was located outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi,
- Whether the presence of National Faceless Assessment Centre in Delhi would be a sufficient “cause of action” to confer jurisdiction on this court to entertain a writ petition under article 226 ignoring the location of the permanent account number Assessing Officer/jurisdictional Assessing Officer and any other relevant factors,
(iv). Whether when a part of cause of action arose within one or more High Courts, the petitioner being dominus litus would have the right to choose his forum,
v).Whether applying the principles of the Full Bench decision in the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. UOI(2011) 10 GSTR 20 / 166 Comp Cas 115/ 43 VST 375 (Delhi) (HC) (FB), this court should entertain the writ petitions or refuse to exercise discretion to entertain on the ground that the permanent account number Assessing Officer/jurisdictional Assessing Officer was located outside the jurisdiction of this court,
(vi). Whether the principle of res judicata was attracted, were required to be settled and decided by way of an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench of the court.(AY. 2018-19)