Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (7) TMI 413

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eaport. This transaction led to issuance of notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act from the office of the Intelligence Officer, DRI, Bombay to the petitioner and resulted into a penalty being imposed on the petitioner by the Collector Customs, Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The petitioners preferred an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which was heard by the North Regional Bench and came to be dismissed on 3-1-1992 by order Annexure P/9. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 130 of the Act seeking a reference to the High Court on the questions set out in the application. This application has also been rejected. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 130(3) of the Act seeking a mandamus to the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer it to the High Court. A preliminary objection has been raised to the jurisdictional competence of the Delhi High Court to hear the application submitting that it does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition which should have been filed before the High Court of Bombay. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peal for that territory other than the Supreme Court of India" 6. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962 read with sub-section (1) of Section 129D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Section 81B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the Customs Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has framed rules entitled Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1982. Clause (d) of Rule 2 defines a Bench to mean a Bench of the Tribunal and includes a Special Bench and a Member sitting singly. According to Rule 3 a Bench may hold sittings only at headquarter or at such other place falling within its jurisdiction subject to such general orders as may be made by the President. Powers of the Bench are governed by Rule 3. A Bench shall hear and determine such appeals and applications made under the Act or as the President may by general or special order direct. Where two or more Benches are functioning at any place, the President may transfer an appeal or application from one Bench to the other. An application for reference to the High Court or Supreme Court shall be heard by the same bench which heard the appeal giving r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a Member of the Bench having jurisdiction in a matter has decided or dealt with that matter in any other capacity, or does not consider it proper, for any reason to deal with that matter, the President shall allot the matter to a reconstituted Bench which does not include that member or to another Bench, as he may consider appropriate. 7.2. Benches as constituted by the order and set out in a table appended to the order as under : The Table Sl. No. Title of the Bench Location Jurisdiction (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. North Regional New Bench Delhi States of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu Kashimir, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and Union Territories of Chandigarh and Delhi. 2. South Regional Bench Madras States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Union Territories of Lakshadweep and Pondicherry. 3. East Regional Bench Calcutta States of Assam, Bihar, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Orissa, Sikkim, Tripura, West Bengal and Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is having its seat at New Delhi. In Seth Banarsi Dass Gnpta v. C.I.T., [1978] 113 ITR 817,the assessee resided and carried on business at Meerut in UP. The assessment orders were passed by the ITO at Meerut and the appeals were heard by Appellate Asstt. Commissioner, Meerut. Further appeals preferred by the assessee were disposed of by the Delhi Bench of the Appellate Tribunal. 9.1. At the request of the assessee a reference was made by the Tribunal to Delhi High Court. At the hearing an objection was raised to the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court to hear the reference. Having examined the position under the Income-tax Act, and the decision of Madras High Court in C.I.T. v. S. Sivaramakrishna lyer, [1968] 70 ITR 860, this Court returned the reference unanswered on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The Court held that when there is no direct statutory provision governing the matter, proper course would be to apply the same basis that has been adopted with regard to the jurisdiction of a Bench of Appellate Tribunal. The Division Bench further opined that when a Bench of the Appellate Tribunal hears and determines an appeal as an appeal from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which exercises territorial jurisdiction over the situes of the Assessing Officer. Else it would result in serious anomalies. An assessee affected by an assessment order at Bombay may invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and suited to him and thus get rid of the law laid down to the contrary by the High Court of Bombay not suited to the assessee. This cannot be allowed. 12. Having made a careful comparative reading of the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the Customs Act, as also the relevant rules and orders of the Tribunal we are unhesitatingly of the opinion that the principles laid down in the abovesaid three Division Bench decisions of Delhi High Court can be applied and do apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. The present case arises out of the State of Bombay. The petitioner may have its factory establishment at Panipat in the State of Haryana but that is irrelevant. The Adjudicating Authority is at Bombay. Obviously it is bound by the law laid down under the provisions of the Customs Act or any other law as interpreted by the High Court of Bombay. For the purpose of the case at hand, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates