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

2018 (10) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ims to have approached the Court and this would not be a good ground to entertain the present writ petition, which has been filed belatedly. A litigant who seeks to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be heard to contend that representations or memorials were being submitted to the authorities and same was not disposed of and thereby a dead cause of action was alive and then, approach this Court belatedly. That apart, sub-article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India would indicate that power conferred under sub article (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person can be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which cause of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Served From India Scheme (for short SFIS ) which provided for benefits in the form of duty credit scrip certificates equitant to an amount of 10% of such foreign exchange earnings, to Indian Service Providers engaged in exporting certain services and who had a total free foreign exchange earnings of atleast ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) in a financial year. It is the contention of the petitioner that such scrips obtained by the Indian Service Providers under the SFIS scheme could be used for import of any capital goods, spares, professional equipment, office equipment, office furniture and consumables. 3. It is further stated that petitioner having applied under the said scheme from time to time obtained the duty credit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction with regard to maintainability of the petition contending inter-alia under Section 5 of the FTDR Act or under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition since no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and he would draw the attention of this Court that the registered office of the petitioner is also at Mumbai and the show cause notice impugned in the petition is also issued by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, Mumbai and as such this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that even otherwise on merits also, the petitioner is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ached this Court. No grounds or reasons has been assigned for such inordinate delay. 9. As could be seen from the records, the show cause notice has been issued in the year 2014, the Policy Interpretation Committee under the Chairmanship of Director General of Foreign Trade has interpreted the policy on 27.12.2011 itself and on the premise that the proceedings are pending, petitioner claims to have approached the Court and this would not be a good ground to entertain the present writ petition, which has been filed belatedly. A litigant who seeks to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be heard to contend that representations or memorials were being submitted to the authorities and same was not disposed of and thereby a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion arose. 11. In the instant case undisputedly the registered office of the petitioner is located at Mumbai. The show cause notice impugned in the writ petition has been issued by the Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade at Mumbai. Duty draw backs have been drawn at Mumbai Port. Thus, the entire cause of action having arisen within the territory of High Court of Mumbai. Hence, petitioner cannot be heard to contend that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226(1). Merely because petitioner is also having a hotel at Bengaluru amongst being run by it chain of hotels across the country would not give rise for cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to exercise the power .....

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