The State Of Goa VS Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd

The appellant is one of several respondents involved in Writ Petition (C) No. 36 of 2017, Writ Petition (C) No. 38 of 2017, and Writ Petition (C) No. 59 of 2017, which are currently pending in the High Court of Sikkim. They have filed separate applications in these three writ petitions, seeking their removal from the list of respondents. The basis of these applications is that a notification issued by the appellant is being challenged in the writ petitions. The appellant argues that if such a notification is subject to challenge, the appropriate court for addressing this matter is the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

The appellant contends that the notification in question falls under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, and thus, any legal remedy regarding its challenge should be pursued there. They argue that the subject matter of the notification does not fall within the purview of the High Court of Sikkim and therefore, their inclusion as a respondent in these writ petitions is improper.

The appellant’s plea for deletion from the array of respondents is based on the premise that the legal proceedings concerning the challenged notification should be conducted in a jurisdiction other than that of the High Court of Sikkim. They assert that the High Court of Bombay at Goa is the appropriate forum for adjudicating upon the validity and legality of the notification in question.

In summary, the appellant seeks to have themselves removed from the list of respondents in the aforementioned writ petitions pending before the High Court of Sikkim, arguing that the challenged notification falls under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, and thus, any legal proceedings regarding its challenge should be pursued there instead.

The case involves the appellant as one of several respondents in three writ petitions pending in the High Court of Sikkim. The appellant filed separate applications in these petitions seeking its removal from the list of respondents. They argued that a notification issued by them was being challenged in the writ petitions, and if it were subject to challenge, the appropriate court would be the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The appellant contended that a notification issued under a state statute couldn’t be scrutinized by a high court of another state, especially when no part of the cause of action arose within the latter’s jurisdiction.

Furthermore, they pointed out that the same notification was being challenged in another writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, emphasizing the need to avoid conflicting opinions. The appellant suggested that the petitioners could either challenge the notification independently in the Bombay High Court or apply for intervention in the existing Bombay High Court case.

However, the High Court of Sikkim, in a common judgment and order dated June 6, 2018, dismissed all three applications. The appellant now challenges this decision through three separate appeals, seeking special leave from the court.

The case involves the appellant as one of several respondents in multiple writ petitions pending before the High Court of Sikkim. The appellant sought its deletion from the list of respondents, arguing that a notification it issued was being challenged in the writ petitions, but the appropriate court for such challenges should be the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The appellant contended that since the notification was issued under a statute of a different state, it shouldn’t be subject to scrutiny by the High Court of Sikkim, especially when no cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellant pointed out that the same notification was also under challenge in a separate writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

However, the High Court of Sikkim dismissed the appellant’s applications, leading to these appeals. The appeals question whether the High Court was correct in its decision.

The core issue revolves around various notifications issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as well as rate notifications issued by different states, including Goa. The specific challenge pertains to a Goa government notification levying tax on lotteries authorized by state governments. The writ petitioners seek a declaration that this notification is unconstitutional and illegal.

The crux of the matter in these appeals is whether the High Court of Sikkim had jurisdiction over the case, considering the appellant’s arguments regarding the proper forum for challenging the notification.

The appellant is one of several respondents in three writ petitions, namely W.P.(C) No. 36 of 2017, W.P.(C) No. 38 of 2017, and W.P.(C) No. 59 of 2017, pending in the High Court of Sikkim. The appellant filed separate applications in these writ petitions seeking its removal from the list of respondents. These applications were based on the argument that a notification issued by the appellant was being challenged in the writ petitions and that such challenges should be addressed in the High Court of Bombay at Goa, as the appropriate jurisdiction. The appellant contended that since the notification was issued under a statute by a State legislature, it shouldn’t be subject to judicial scrutiny in a different state’s high court, especially when no cause of action arose within that high court’s jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellant pointed out that the same notification was being challenged in another writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, suggesting that to avoid conflicting judgments, the writ petitioners could either challenge the notification in the same court or seek intervention in the ongoing case.

However, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s applications through a common judgment and order dated June 6, 2018. Consequently, the appellant filed three separate appeals challenging this decision. The appeals were granted special leave.

The central issue before the court is whether the High Court was justified in finding that “at least a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court,” leading to the dismissal of the applications.

Despite notice being issued to the writ petitioners, none appeared before the court. The court heard arguments from the appellant’s counsel, the Additional Solicitor General representing the Union of India, and counsel for other parties involved.

For clarity, the court particularly reviewed the petition averments in W.P.(C) No. 38 of 2017. In this petition, a private limited company engaged in the business of purchasing and selling lottery tickets organized by the Government of Sikkim within and outside the state is the petitioner. The company sells lottery tickets in multiple states, including Sikkim, Punjab, Goa, and Maharashtra. It contends that the lottery tickets it supplies, run by the State Government of Sikkim, should not be subjected to a higher Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate of 28%, as they are not lotteries authorized by the state government.

The case revolves around the challenge to various notifications issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as well as rate-notifications by the states of Goa, Maharashtra, Punjab, and Sikkim. Specifically, the challenge is directed at a notification issued by the Government of Goa imposing a 14% tax on lotteries authorized by state governments.

In summary, the appeals seek to contest the High Court’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s applications and determine whether the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant is valid.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: