9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Single Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India [reported in (2004) 168 ELT (3)], the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of R.T.Industries Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission [reported in (2018) 98 Taxmann.com 236] and another decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of West Coast Ingots (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [reported in (2007) 209 ELT 343]. The correctness of the impugned order is challenged before us by way of this appeal. 4. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a marked distinction between the expressions 'jurisdiction' and 'forum convenience' and even if a minuscule part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition is maintainable. It is further submitted that the seat of the Settlement Commission is in Chennai, which has jurisdiction to settle cases arising from various States and one of the States being Karnataka where the appellant is regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. Raman v. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2011) 5 MLJ 849, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canon Steels P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion). reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 97 (S.C.). Therefore, it is the contention of the appellant that though the Original Authority, the First Appellate Authority were situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the order passed by the Tribunal would be a relevant factor for the appellant choosing to file this appeal before this Court and the doctrine of forum convenience would be very relevant when part of the "cause of action" has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. ..... 10. The issue which fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Industries, referred above, was relating to determination of situs of the High Court in which appeals would lie under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act (pari materia to Section 130 of the Customs Act). The appellant therein was an assessee under the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The assessment proceedings ultimately went before the Tribunal at New Delhi. At the releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play, pointing out that an assessee, affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay, may invoke the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and which might suit him and would be able to successfully evade the law laid down by the High Court at Bombay. Furthermore, it was held that when an appeal is provided under a statute, Parliament must have thought of one High Court and it is a different matter that by way of necessity, a Tribunal may have to exercise jurisdiction over several States, but it does not appeal to any reason that Parliament intended, despite providing for an appeal before the High Court, that appeals may be filed before different High Courts at the sweet will of the party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal and in the case of this nature, the cause of action doctrine may not be invoked. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, High Court has power to issue writ of certiorari in respect of the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts within its territorial jurisdiction or if any cause of action has arisen there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be considered only on the basis of statutory provisions and not anything else. While defining the High Court in terms of Section 36(b) of the Act, Parliament never contemplated to have a situation of this nature and if the cause of action doctrine is given effect to, invariably more than one High Court may have jurisdiction, which is not contemplated. ..... 15. Even in the case of Canon Steels P. Ltd. (supra), ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Punjab & Haryana High Court was justified in its view as the Original adjudication order and the appellate order were not issued by any authority within its territorial jurisdiction, but considering that no person should be left without the remedy though the case was withdrawn by the assessee, direct the restoration of the said case as undisputably, the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the Delhi High Court was directed to deal the matter on merits. Therefore, the decision in the case of the Canon Steels P. Ltd. (supra), does not in any manner advance the case of the appellant and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Industries, referred supra, would be square ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
