{"id":37442,"date":"2023-09-07T15:15:09","date_gmt":"2023-09-07T09:45:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/gpl-rktcpl-jv-v-nfac-2023-453-itr-384-291-taxman-409-330-ctr-362-221-dtr-272-delhihc-pharmachol-chemicals-pvt-ltd-v-nfac-2023-453-itr-384-291-taxman-409-330-ctr-362-221-dtr-272\/"},"modified":"2023-09-07T15:15:09","modified_gmt":"2023-09-07T09:45:09","slug":"gpl-rktcpl-jv-v-nfac-2023-453-itr-384-291-taxman-409-330-ctr-362-221-dtr-272-delhihc-pharmachol-chemicals-pvt-ltd-v-nfac-2023-453-itr-384-291-taxman-409-330-ctr-362-221-dtr-272","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/gpl-rktcpl-jv-v-nfac-2023-453-itr-384-291-taxman-409-330-ctr-362-221-dtr-272-delhihc-pharmachol-chemicals-pvt-ltd-v-nfac-2023-453-itr-384-291-taxman-409-330-ctr-362-221-dtr-272\/","title":{"rendered":"GPL-Rktcpl JV v. NFAC (2023) 453 ITR 384 \/ 291 Taxman 409 \/ 330 CTR 362 \/ 221 DTR 272 (Delhi)(HC) Pharmachol Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. NFAC (2023) 453 ITR 384 \/ 291 Taxman 409\/ 330 CTR 362\/ 221 DTR 272 (Delhi)(HC) RKKR Foundation v. NFAC (2023) 453 ITR 384 \/ 291 Taxman 409\/ 330 CTR 362 \/ 221 DTR 272 (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Writ petitions were filed challenging assessment orders passed under section\u00a0143(3)\u00a0read with section\u00a0144B\u00a0of the Act, 1961, notices of demand under section\u00a0156\u00a0and notices for initiation of penalty proceedings under section\u00a0271AAC(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:<\/p>\n<p>1.Whether the Delhi High Court had the territorial jurisdiction under article 226 of the\u00a0Constitution of India\u00a0to entertain the writ petitions when the permanent account number Assessing Officer\/jurisdictional Assessing Officer was located outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi,<\/p>\n<p>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,<\/p>\n<ol start=\"111\">\n<li>Whether the presence of National Faceless Assessment Centre in Delhi would be a sufficient \u201ccause of action\u201d 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,<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>(iv).\u00a0 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,<\/p>\n<p>v).Whether applying the principles of the Full Bench decision in the case of\u00a0Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. UOI(2011) 10 GSTR 20 \/ 166 Comp\u00a0 Cas 115\/ 43 VST 375\u00a0 \u00a0(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,<\/p>\n<p>(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)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Writ-Territorial Jurisdiction of Court -Doctrine of forum non convenience &#8211; Assessment order -Cause of action &#8211; Situs of  Assessing Officer would be determinative of  Jurisdiction of  High Court -Complexity of  Legal  issues -Matter referred to larger Bench. [S. 143(3), 144B(1)(xxxii),  156, 271AACC (1), Art. 226]  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37442","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-9JU","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37442","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37442"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37442\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37443,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37442\/revisions\/37443"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37442"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37442"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37442"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}