THE STATE OF GOA versus SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS (P) LTD & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 14-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
247
THE STATE OF GOA
v.
SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS (P) LTD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 2023)
MARCH 14, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Writ Jurisdiction of the High
Court – Cause of Action/Part of cause of action – Concept of,
u/Art. 226(2) – Notification issued by the State of Goa levying 14%
tax on Lottery authorised by State Government – Challenged to, by
the company selling lottery tickets which is being run by the State
of Sikkim, in various States including Goa, in a writ petition before
the High Court of Sikkim – Applications by the State of Goa before
the High Court for deletion of its name from the array of respondent
on the ground that notification under a statute enacted by the State
legislature cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny within the
jurisdiction of a High Court of a different state, more so, no cause
of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of the High Court of Sikkim
– High Court dismissed the application holding that at least a part
of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court
as the notification was issued under CGST Act as well IGST Act –
On appeal, held: Party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose
that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do
constitute a cause empowering the High Court to decide the dispute
and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the High
Court arose within its jurisdiction – Such pleaded facts must have a
nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer
can be granted – Those facts which are not relevant or germane for
grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action
conferring jurisdiction on the court – These are the guiding tests –
Assuming that a slender part of the cause of action did arise within
the State of Sikkim, the concept of forum conveniens ought to have
been considered by the High Court – Tax is levied by the Government
of Goa in respect of carrying of any business in the territory of
Goa – Merely having the office in the State of Sikkim does not form
the integral part of the cause of action – No, adverse consequence
of the impugned notification felt within the jurisdiction of the High
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 247
247
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Court – High Court erred in dismissing the applications – Order
passed by the High Court set aside – Cause of action.
National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Haribox Swalram
(2004) 9 SCC 786 : [2004] 3 SCR 738; Kusum Ingots
v. Union of India (2006) 4 SCC 254; Ambica Industries
v. CCE (2007) 6 SCC 769 : [2007] 7 SCR 685 –
referred to.
Cooke v. Gill (1873) 8 CP 107 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2004] 3 SCR 738
referred to
Para 16
(2006) 4 SCC 254
referred to
Para 18
[2007] 7 SCR 685
referred to
Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1700
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2018 of the High Court
of Sikkim in IA Nos. 07, 01 and 05 of 2018.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1701 and 1702 of 2023.
Ravindra A. Lokhande, Baban Jeet Singh Mew, Sudarsh Menon,
Satyam Singh, Samarendra Beura, Rajesh Rathore, Advs. for the
Appellant.
N. Venkataraman, ASG, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Ms. Vishakha,
Shashank Bajpai, Mahaling Pandarge, Siddhartha Sinha, Raj Bahadur
Yadav, Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri,
Ms. Rupal Agarwal, Narendra Kumar, Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar
Dubey, Ashish Kumar Sinha, Nishant Verma, Mrs. Anisha Mathur,
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms.
Kirti Dadheech, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Anisha
Mathur, Aaditya A. Pandae, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Abhimanyu Tewari,
Ms. Eliza Bar, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar
Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Ajay Pal, Mayank
Dahiya, Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Ms. Priyanka C, Ms. Astha Sharma,
Ravinder Singh, Srisatya Mohanty, Ms. Raveesha Gupta, Ms. Mantika
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
249
Haryani, Sanjeev Kaushik, Shreyas Awasthi, Himanshu Chakravarty,
Devvrat Singh, Ms. Muskan Surana, Advs. for the Repondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is one of multiple respondents in W.P.(C) No. 36
of 2017, W.P.(C) No. 38 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 59 of 2017, pending
on the file of the High Court of Sikkim (hereafter ‘the High Court’, for
short). Separate applications in the said three writ petitions were filed by
the appellant see
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.