LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

The State of Goa vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 2023, with Civil Appeal Nos. 1701-1702 of 2023)

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 229Decided 14 Mar 2023
Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 2023
S. Ravindra Bhat · Dipankar Datta

Background

Companies selling Sikkim state lottery tickets in Goa, Maharashtra and Punjab challenged GST notifications, including one issued by the State of Goa taxing lottery sales at 14%, before the High Court of Sikkim, arguing the differential tax rate was unconstitutional. The State of Goa applied to be deleted from these Sikkim writ petitions, arguing no part of the cause of action arose in Sikkim and that a similar challenge to the same Goa notification was already pending before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The Sikkim High Court dismissed Goa's applications, holding that at least part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction because the petitioning company's office was in Sikkim.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the Sikkim High Court had no territorial jurisdiction over the State of Goa's notification. It reasoned that a "cause of action" for writ jurisdiction purposes means facts material to obtaining the relief sought, and here the actual legal injury, an obligation to pay 14% tax, arose from carrying on business in Goa, not from the company merely having an office in Sikkim. The petition's own pleadings failed to show any part of the cause of action against Goa's notification arose within Sikkim's territory. The Court also held that even if a slender part of the cause of action had technically arisen in Sikkim, the doctrine of forum conveniens should have led the High Court not to retain the case against Goa. The appeals were allowed and Goa was deleted from the Sikkim writ petitions, though the petitioners remained free to challenge the Goa notification in the appropriate court.

Lesson Learnt

A High Court can only exercise writ jurisdiction over a party if a material part of the actual legal cause of action against that party arose within its territory: merely having an office or being one of several respondents named in a petition filed elsewhere is not enough, and litigants must sue the right authority in the right state's courts.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case