TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant is an assessee on the file of the third respondent namely the DCIT, Company Circle 4(1)(Inv.), IV Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore. The Appellate Authority, before whom the assessee filed the appeal is the second respondent herein namely the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-III, Bangalore. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition on the ground that due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, the order passed by the Settlement Commission did not call for interference. Writ appeal is dismissed leaving it open to the appellant to move the High Court of Karnataka if they are so advised. It is also made clear that the above writ appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal/writ petition and the merits of the case of the appellant have not been dealt with in this judgment. - Writ Appeal No.717 of 2020 And CMP.No.9767 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2020 - Mr. Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM And Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN For the Appellant : Mr.G.Baskar For the Respondents : Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, SSC JUDGMENT T .S.SIVAGNANAM, J. We h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation before a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party in the decision in the case of Zeenath International Supplies Vs. Commissioner of Customs [reported in 2014 (304) E.L.T. 491]. This matter arose under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant therein filed a civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act as against the final order passed by the Settlement Commission. Admittedly, the appellant therein was carrying on their business activities outside the State of Tamil Nadu. The question arose was as to whether this Court could entertain the appeal merely on the ground that the situs of the Settlement Commission was within the jurisdiction of this Court. The said legal issue was answered against the appellant therein in the following terms : 7. Since the question relating to the jurisdiction of this Court was raised as a preliminary objection, we directed the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to address arguments on the contention raised by the Revenue as regards the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this appeal under Section 130 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the appeal contending that the term of cause of action applicable in relation to a suit or a writ petition before the High Court having regard to clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be the basis for determining the situs of the High Court to which an appeal shall lie under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. It was further submitted that the situs of the Assessing Officer would be the determinative factor for the High Court to exercise its territorial jurisdiction in entertaining appeal thereunder and not the situs of the Tribunal alone. 11. The Hon ble Supreme Court after noticing the earlier Five Judges Bench judgment in the case of Nasiruddin v. S.T.A., Tribunal reported in (1975) 2 SCC 671, pointed out that the decision of a Tribunal would be binding on the Assessing Authority and if the situs of the Appellate Tribunal should be considered to be the determinative factor, a decision rendered by the Tribunal shall be binding on all the authorities exercising its jurisdiction under the said Tribunal. In the said case, the Delhi Tribunal exercised jurisdiction over all the three States and in all the three States there are High Courts. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erring to the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Sivaramakrishna Iyer reported in 1968 (70) ITR 860 (Madras), the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (1978) 113 ITR 817 (Del.), and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. 3, held that although in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution as also Article 226(2) thereof, the High Court would exercise its discretionary jurisdiction as also the 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 within but the same tests cannot be applied when the Appellate Court exercises a jurisdiction over a Tribunal situated in more than one State. In such a situation, the High Court situated in the State where the first Court is located should be considered to be the appropriate Appellate Authority. CPC did not contemplate such a situation. Further, it was pointed out that the submission of the appellant is inconsistent and cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case on hand and the determination of jurisdiction of the High Court should be based on the relevant Statute and that the 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. 8. As noted above, the appellant is an assessee on the file of the third respondent namely the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle 4(1)(Inv.), IV Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore. The Appellate Authority, before whom the assessee filed the appeal is the second respondent herein namely the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-III, Bangalore. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition on the ground that due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, the order passed by the Settlement Commission did not call for interference. 9. In the light of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed leaving it open to the appellant to move the High Court of Karnataka if they are so advised. It is also made clear that the above writ appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
