THE STATE OF GOAversusSUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS (P) LTD & ORS.

                         [2023] 2 S.C.R. 247                              247


                       THE STATE OF GOA                                   A
                                  v.
   SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS (P) LTD & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 2023)
                          MARCH 14, 2023                                  B
    [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%
                                                                          C
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      D
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
                                                                          E
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      F
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
                                                                          G
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     H
                                  247
248            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     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
B           v. CCE (2007) 6 SCC 769 : [2007] 7 SCR 685 –
            referred to.
            Cooke v. Gill (1873) 8 CP 107 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference

C     [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.
D
            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.
E
            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,
F     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
G     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
H
THE STATE OF GOA v. SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS                                 249
                    (P) LTD & ORS.

Haryani, Sanjeev Kaushik, Shreyas Awasthi, Himanshu Chakravarty,                  A
Devvrat Singh, Ms. Muskan Surana, Advs. for the Repondents.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
       Leave granted.                                                             B
       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 seeking its deletion from the array of respondents. The             C
appellant had pleaded in the said applications that, inter alia, a notification
issued by it was under challenge in the writ petitions and that if, at all,
such notification could be made a subject matter of challenge, the High
Court of Bombay at Goa is the appropriate court where remedy ought to
be pursued. According to the appellant, a notification issued under a
statute enacted by a State legislature cannot be subjected to judicial            D
scrutiny within the jurisdiction of a high court of a different State, more
so when no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of that high
court. It was further pleaded that since no part of the cause of action for
invocation of the writ jurisdiction had arisen within the territorial limits of
the High Court, the writ petitions ought not to proceed against the               E
appellant. One other fact brought to the notice of the High Court by the
appellant was that the same notification was under challenge in W.P.(C)
No. 759/2017 instituted by Serenity Trades Private Limited before the
High Court of Bombay at Goa and that such writ petition after admission
was pending for final hearing. It was urged by the appellant that to avoid
conflict of opinions, the writ petitioners could either independently             F
challenge the notification before the High Court of Bombay at Goa or
apply for intervention in W.P.(C) No. 759/2017.
      3. The High Court, by a common judgment and order dated 6th
June, 2018, has dismissed the three applications. These three appeals,
by special leave, are directed against such judgment and order.                   G
      4. Since a common judgment and order is under challenge, we
propose to decide these appeals by this common judgment and order.
      5. Various notifications issued under the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter ‘CGST Act’, for short) and the
                                                                                  H
250             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter ‘IGST Act’,
      for short) are under challenge in all the three writ petitions together with
      rate-notifications issued by the States of Goa, Maharashtra, Punjab and
      Sikkim. Inter alia, the challenge is to a notification stated to bear “No.01/
      2017” dated 30th June, 2017 issued by the Government of Goa in exercise
      of power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Goa Goods
B
      and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter ‘GGST Act’, for short) levying
      tax @ 14% on “(L)ottery authorized by State Governments”. The
      writ petitioners have invoked the high prerogative writ jurisdiction of the
      High Court to seek a declaration that the impugned notification is
      unconstitutional and illegal.
C             6. The short question that arises for a decision on these appeals
      is, whether the High Court was justified in returning the finding that “at
      least a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction
      of this Court” and premised on such a finding, to dismiss the applications.
            7. Notice was issued by this Court on 12th November, 2018, after
D     condonation of delay in presentation of the petitions for special leave to
      appeal.
             8. None has appeared for the writ petitioners despite service of
      notice. We have heard counsel for the appellant and the Additional
      Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India as well as counsel for
E     the other appearing parties.
             9. For the purpose of a decision on these appeals, the petition
      averments in W.P.(C) No. 38 of 2017 may be noticed. A private limited
      company, “engaged in the business of purchase and sale of lottery
      tickets run, conducted and organized by the Government of Sikkim
F     both within the State of Sikkim as well as outside the State”, is the
      writ petitioner. The petitioning company sells lottery tickets in the States
      of Sikkim, Punjab, Goa and Maharashtra. It is the pleaded case that the
      lottery tickets, which are supplied by the petitioning company, are
      “lotteries which is being run by the State Government of Sikkim, it
G     is not a lottery authorized by the State Government requiring to
      discharge GST under a higher rate of taxation of 28%”. The case
      sought to be set up is that if the distinction between “(L)ottery run by
      State Governments” and “(L)ottery authorized by State Governments”
      were made, as has been done by the impugned notification, the same
      would be ex facie illegal and result in wiping out competition.
H
THE STATE OF GOA v. SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS                              251
         (P) LTD & ORS. [DIPANKAR DATTA, J.]

       10. The prayers in W.P.(C) No. 38 of 2017 are to the following          A
effect:
      “(i) Set aside the impugned Notifications 01/2017 Central
      Tax(Rate), 01/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate), 01/2017, and the
      State rate Notifications of the States of Sikkim, Goa, Punjab
      and Maharashtra to the extent it levies differential rates of            B
      tax on the supply of Lottery tickets by creating an illusory
      sub-classification between ‘Lottery run by the State
      Government’ as discriminatory and violative of Article 14,
      19(1)(g), 301, 304 of the Constitution of India and of the
      CGST, SGST and IGST Act, and further hold that only 12%
      ad valorem tax can be levied uniformly in cases of all State             C
      run lotteries irrespective of where the tickets are sold.
      (ii) Direct refund of differential duty paid at the rate of 28%
      as against the liability of the Petitioner to pay duty only at
      the rate of 12% with interest.
                                                                               D
      (iii) Set aside the impugned Notifications 01/2017 Central
      Tax (Rate), 01/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) 01/2017 and the
      State rate Notifications of the States of Sikkim, Goa, Punjab
      and Maharashtra to the extent it levies tax on the face value
      of the lottery ticket without abating the prize money,
      component of the lottery ticket when the said amount never               E
      forms part of the income of the Petitioner the lottery trade.”
       11. The High Court, while delivering the impugned judgment and
order, proceeded to hold that the writ petitioners were aggrieved not
only by the impugned notification issued by the appellant under the GGST
Act but also by the act of the Central Government in issuing the impugned      F
notifications under the CGST Act as well as the IGST Act seeking to
levy tax (GST) on lotteries organized, promoted and conducted by the
State of Sikkim. The High Court further noted that it was not the actual
incidence of GST under the GGST Act which is impugned in the writ
petitions but the provisions of law made by the Parliament as well as the      G
respective State Governments including the State of Goa by which they
sought to levy GST on lotteries. Considering the prayers made in the
writ petition, the High Court was further of the view that, at least, a part
of the cause of action had arisen with its jurisdiction. The High Court
was also of the view that since notice had been issued on W.P.(C) Nos.
                                                                               H
252             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     36 and 38 of 2017 on 17th July, 2017, much before Rule was issued by
      the High Court of Bombay at Goa on 28th September, 2017 in W.P.(C)
      No. 759/2017, no ground had been set up by the appellant for deletion;
      hence, the interim applications seeking deletion stood dismissed.
             12. In support of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain
B     and try the writ petition, this is what the petitioning company has stated:
             “29. That his Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the
             said writ petition as the cause of action arises in Sikkim only.
             Both the Petitioner and the Respondents are located within
             the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court.”
C
            Apart from these two sentences, nothing more has been averred
      in support of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
             13. From the above, it is clear that according to the petitioning
      company the cause of action has arisen in Sikkim only, meaning thereby
D     the whole of the cause of action and not part of it; additionally, it is
      stated that all the respondents are located within the territorial jurisdiction
      of the High Court which is factually incorrect.
             14. While dealing with an objection as to lack of territorial
      jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition on the ground that the cause of
      action has not arisen within its jurisdiction, a high court essentially has to
E
      arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the averments made in the petition
      memo treating the contents as true and correct. That is the fundamental
      principle. Bearing this in mind, we have looked into the petition memo of
      W.P.(C) No. 38 of 2017 and searched in vain to trace how at least part
      of the cause of action has been pleaded by the petitioning company to
F     have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
             15. This is a case where clause (2) of Article 226 has been invoked
      by the High Court to clothe it with the jurisdiction to entertain and try the
      writ petitions. The Constitutional mandate of clause (2) is that the ‘cause
      of action’, referred to therein, must at least arise in part within the
G     territories in relation to which the high court exercises jurisdiction when
      writ powers conferred by clause (1) are proposed to be exercised,
      notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the
      residence of the person is not within those territories. The expression
      ‘cause of action’ has not been defined in the Constitution. However, the
      classic definition of ‘cause of action’ given by Lord Brett in Cooke vs.
H
THE STATE OF GOA v. SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS                                253
         (P) LTD & ORS. [DIPANKAR DATTA, J.]

Gill 1 that “cause of action means every fact which it would be                  A
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support
his right to the judgment of the court”, has been accepted by this
Court in a couple of decisions. It is axiomatic that without a cause, there
cannot be any action. However, in the context of a writ petition, what
would constitute such ‘cause of action’ is the material facts which are
                                                                                 B
imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as
claimed. Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded
constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of
Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by
the high court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material,
essential or integral part of the cause of action. In so determining, it is      C
the substance of the matter that is relevant. It, therefore, follows that
the 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.
                                                                                 D
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.
        16. Here, tax has been levied by the Government of Goa in respect        E
of a business that the petitioning company is carrying on within the territory
of Goa. Such tax is payable by the petitioning company not in respect of
carrying on of any business in the territory of Sikkim. Hence, merely
because the petitioning company has its office in Gangtok, Sikkim, the
same by itself does not form an integral part of the cause of action             F
authorizing the petitioning company to move the High Court. We hold so
in view of the decision of this Court in National Textile Corporation
Ltd. vs. Haribox Swalram2. The immediate civil or evil consequence,
if at all, arising from the impugned notification is that the petitioning
company has to pay tax @ 14% to the Government of Goa. The liability
arises for the specific nature of business carried on by the petitioning         G
company within the territory of Goa. The pleadings do not reflect that
any adverse consequence of the impugned notification has been felt
within the jurisdiction of the High Court. At this stage, we are not
1
    (1873) 8 CP 107
2
     (2004) 9 SCC 786                                                            H
254               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     concerned with the differential duty as envisaged in Schedule II [@
      6%] vis-à-vis Schedule IV [@ 14%] of the impugned notification. That
      is a matter having a bearing on the merits of the litigation. The long and
      short of the matter is that the petitioning company has to bear the liability
      of paying tax @ 14% levied by the Government of Goa for selling lottery
      tickets in the State of Goa under Schedule IV of the impugned notification.
B
      It does not bear out from the petition memo how the impugned notification
      levying tax for carrying on business in the State of Goa subjects the
      petitioning company to a legal wrong within the territory of Sikkim for
      the writ petition to be entertained by the High Court.
             17. In our opinion, the High Court ought not to have dismissed the
C     applications of the appellant without considering the petition memo which
      has no semblance of a case having been made out as to how part of
      cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the High Court or
      without any pleading as to how any right has been affected within the
      territory of Sikkim.
D            18. Even otherwise, the High Court was not justified in dismissing
      the interim applications. 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. As held
      by this Court in Kusum Ingots Vs. Union of India3 and Ambica
E     Industries Vs. CCE4, even if a small part of the cause of action arises
      within the territorial jurisdiction of a high court, the same by itself could
      not have been a determinative factor compelling the High Court to keep
      the writ petitions alive against the appellant to decide the matter qua the
      impugned notification, on merit.

F            19. For the reasons aforesaid, we have no hesitation to hold that
      the High Court erred in dismissing the applications filed by the appellant.
      Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 6th June, 2018 is
      set aside. The civil appeals are allowed, without costs.
            20. The appellant shall stand deleted from the array of respondents
G     in W.P.(C) Nos. 36, 38 and 59 of 2017.
            21. Interim order staying the proceedings before the High Court
      stands vacated with the result that the High Court may proceed to decide
      the writ petitions against the other respondents according to law.
      3
          (2006) 4 SCC 254
H     4
          (2007) 6 SCC 769
THE STATE OF GOA v. SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS                                255
         (P) LTD & ORS. [DIPANKAR DATTA, J.]

       22. This order shall, however, not preclude the respective writ           A
petitioners from approaching the appropriate court to assail the notification
dated 30th June, 2017 in accordance with law, if so advised.

Nidhi Jain                                                    Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)
                                                                                 B




                                                                                 C




                                                                                 D




                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H