Writ petition dismissed; Delhi High Court cannot entertain petition if Investigation conducuted by DG Haryana .

Writ petition dismissed; Delhi High Court cannot entertain petition if Investigation conducuted by DG Haryana .

Issue: Whether the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging demands and deposits made during an investigation conducted by the DG, Gurugram Zonal Unit, Haryana, when the assessee merely has a unit in Delhi.

Facts:

• An investigation was undertaken by the DG, Gurugram Zonal Unit, Haryana.
• The assessee filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, stating that a deposit was made under duress and protest.

Decision:

• The court held that the mere existence of a unit of the assessee in Delhi does not constitute a material part of the cause of action.
• The investigation was conducted by the Haryana Unit, and the deposit was made with that authority.
• The writ petition was dismissed.
• The assessee was granted liberty to approach the appropriate jurisdictional High Court.
• The ruling was in favor of the revenue.

Key Takeaways:

• The jurisdiction of a High Court in writ petitions is determined by the location where the cause of action arises.
• The location of the investigating authority and where the deposits were made are crucial factors in determining jurisdiction.
• Mere presence of a unit in a state does not automatically confer jurisdiction on that state’s High Court.
• Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applied to this case, although the case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.