Last Updated on March 17, 2023 by Administrator
Issue – The Supreme Court concluded that only those facts that are relevant to the provision of relief will give birth to a “cause of action” under Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution in a significant decision clarifying the term.
Facts of the case – The Sikkim High Court had ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear a case from a corporation contesting the Goa Government’s notification, and the State of Goa had appealed that ruling. The Supreme Court was debating these appeals. A lottery firm filed the writ case to contest a notification that the Goa government had issued under the GST Act.
Arguments – According to the petitioner, because Sikkim had a role in the development of the cause of action, the Sikkim High Court is qualified to hear the case.
The substantial facts that the writ petitioner must plead and establish in order to achieve the relief they are requesting would constitute such a “cause of action,” according to the court. For the petition to be granted, such stated facts must be related to the issue under question. The facts that are not pertinent or germane to the prayer’s grant would not give birth to a cause of action giving the court jurisdiction.
Reasoning – The Court determined that a firm cannot contest a GST notification issued by one state before a High Court in a different state just because it maintains an office there.
In light of the concept of forum conveniens, the High Court should not have heard the writ, even if it is presumed that some of the cause of action originated in the State of Sikkim.
Judgement – The High Court shouldn’t have accepted the writ petitions filed against the State of Goa, the Court said.
Provisions used in the case – CGST Act, Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution, GST Act.
Case title – State of Goa vs Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd and others
Written By – Nikita Shankar
