Writ against order passed by assessing authority of Tamilnadu cannot be filed in Kerala

Manaf Alihassan Vs National Faceless Assessement Centre (Kerala High Court)

In the case of Manaf Alihassan vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, the Kerala High Court delivered a judgment dismissing the writ appeal filed by Manaf Alihassan challenging orders of a Tamil Nadu Assessing Authority. The court’s decision was based on the lack of territorial jurisdiction, as explained in the detailed analysis below.

The crux of the matter lies in the jurisdictional question raised by the appellant, Manaf Alihassan, regarding the attachment of his bank account by the assessing authority in Tamil Nadu. The appellant sought relief from the Kerala High Court, arguing that his bank account was located within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. However, the court found precedent in various rulings, including M/S. Ambica Industries v. Commissioner Of Central Excise and Aparna Balan v. Union of India, establishing that territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the assessing authority rather than the location of the bank account. Since the assessing authority was situated in Tamil Nadu, the Kerala High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

The court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to established principles of jurisdiction, ensuring that legal remedies are pursued in the appropriate forum. It also highlights the significance of precedent in guiding judicial decisions, as evidenced by the court’s reliance on previous rulings to resolve the jurisdictional issue at hand. Furthermore, the dismissal of the writ appeal underscores the need for litigants to carefully consider jurisdictional aspects before filing legal proceedings, thereby avoiding unnecessary delays and expenses associated with pursuing remedies in the wrong forum.

The Kerala High Court’s judgment in Manaf Alihassan vs National Faceless Assessment Centre reaffirms the principle that territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the assessing authority rather than the location of assets such as bank accounts. The dismissal of the writ appeal underscores the importance of adhering to established legal principles and precedent in resolving jurisdictional disputes.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT

This Writ Appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was the writ petitioner in WP(C).No.8064 of 2024 that was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 29.02.2024. The Writ Petition was preferred seeking a direction to lift the attachment on a bank account maintained by the petitioner with the 4^th respondent who happens to be located within the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Single Judge found that the attachment of the bank account of the appellant in Wayanad was consequent to the exercise of power by the assessing authority under the Income Tax Act who was situated in Ooty, in Nilgiris District, which comes within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that the Writ Petition could not be maintained before this Court for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. We have heard Sri. M. P. Shameem Ahamed, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri. Jose Joseph the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department as also Smt. K.V. Rasmi, the learned Standing counsel for the 4^th respondent bank.

On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge requires no interference. It is well settled through the decision of the Supreme Court in M/S. Ambica Industries v. Commissioner Of Central Excise [2007 (6) SCC 769] and the later decisions including the decision of this Court in Aparna Balan and Another v. Union of India and Others [2018 4 KHC 191] as also V. Viswanathan v. State of Kerala [2014 (4) KLT 798 (FB)] and the judgment dated 22.11.2022 of a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1707 of 2022 (K S Jamestin v. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi and Another], that merely because the appellant has a bank account within the State of Kerala, he cannot maintain a Writ Petition challenging the orders passed by an assessing authority who is situated in Tamilnadu, more so when the orders in question are issued in connection with the business carried out by the appellant in Tamilnadu. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.