- (1.) It is contended that Sikkim was not a part of India and at that time Income Tax act was not applicable in respect of the assessment year for which notice was served at New Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this court in State of Sikkim v. Surendra Prasad Sharma and others [1994 (5) SCC 282].
(2.) The aforesaid decision in Surendra sharma's case related to the employees employed in a company in Sikkim and the question which arose there was whether the Indian law applied or not. The question of applicability of the Income Tax Act did not arise in that case, therefore, the said decision has no relevance. The indian Income Tax Act, inter alia, taxes income which accrues or arises in India, it is immaterial whether the petitioner company has its head office in Sikkim or may be carrying on business activities there. The impugned notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act has been issued in relation to the income which is stated to have arisen in India and this can be done even if the petitioner has a company registered in Sikkim. The decision of the High court calls for no interference.
(3.) The petition for special leave is dismissed.;