- (1.) THE petitioner who was heard yesterday on the question of admission, has been additionally heard today on his request. We have also heard learned senior standing counsel for the respondents who has entered appearance on advance notice.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by three orders of assessment and rejection of an application under s. 154 of the IT Act, all orders having been passed by the Assistant CIT, Investigation Circle, Gurgaon (respondent No. 7), and three appellate orders passed by the CIT (A), Haryana (respondent No. 5). It appears that on 20th Nov., 1988, there was a search at the petitioner's premises situated at Gurgaon. The matters relating thereto are partly pending before the CIT and partly before the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in CWP No. 4944 of 1993. So far as the impugned orders of assessment are concerned, the petitioner was issued notices under S. 142(1) of the IT Act in response to which he questioned the jurisdiction of respondent No. 7. However, the assessment proceedings were concluded in the absence of the petitioner on 27th March, 1998/31st March, 1998, inasmuch as they were time barring cases. We asked the petitioner -how was he invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi for seeking setting aside of the orders passed by the authorities of income -tax situated within the State of Haryana ? The petitioner submitted that he was canvassing his fundamental right and by virtue of Art. 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court had jurisdiction as the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court though the authorities against whom the writ was sought to be issued were situated outside its jurisdiction. On principle, there can be no dispute that if the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this High Court, the writ issued by it can extend and run beyond its territorial jurisdiction. However, the question is whether any cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court ?
(3.) THE petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in para 2 of the petition and submitted that part of the cause of action had arisen to him in Delhi and, therefore, the petition lies here.;