TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces are located - Appeal is returned to be filed in the appropriate Court in accordance with law - 10/2008 & 13457-58/2008, 14416/2008 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2009 - VIKRAMAJIT SEN and RAJIV SHAKDHER, JJ. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. P. B. Aggarwala, Ms. Prerna Gautam Mr. Abhishek Baid, Advs., for the appellant Mr. P. P. Malhotra, ASG with Mr. Mukesh Anand Mr. Shailesh Tiwari Mr. Sumit Batra, Advs., for the respondent. [Judgment per : Vikramajit Sen, J.]. - The question which we are called upon to decide on the threshold of these proceedings is whether this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction over the challenge made to the Orders dated 1.5.2008 passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of original authority merges with that of the appellate authority". ...... "We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter alia, in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Technological Institute of Textile, 1998 (47) DRJ 667(DB), Suraj Woolen Mills vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 2000 (123) E.L.T. 471 (Del.) and Bombay Snuff Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2006 (194) E.L.T. 264 (Del.) have clarified that the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction only because the Tribunal whose order is in appeal before it, is located within its territorial boundaries. In Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta vs. CIT, (1978) 113 ITR 817 and Birla Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, Rajasthan, (1980) 123 ITR 354 this Court declined to exercise jurisdiction because both the assesses resided and carried on business outside Delhi. In the former case, the Division Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arty which is not located within the ordinary territorial limits of that High Court. The power to issue writs against any person or Authority or government even beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any High Court is no longer debatable. The rider or prerequisite to the exercise of such power is that the cause of action must meaningfully arise within the territories of that particular High Court. It does not logically follow, however, that if a part of the cause of action arises within the territories over which that High Court holds sway, it must exercise that power rather than directing the petitioner to seek his remedy in any other High Court which is better suited to exercise jurisdiction for the reason that the predominant, substantia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son is treated to be the dominus litis, as a result whereof, he elects to file the appeal before one or the other High Court, the decision of the High Court shall be binding only on the authorities which are within its jurisdiction. It will only be of persuasive value on the authorities functioning under a different jurisdiction. If the binding authority of a High Court does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision of one High Court would not be a binding precedent for other High Courts or courts or tribunals outside its territorial jurisdiction, some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play. An assessee, affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay, may invoke the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the question that the jurisdiction would lie before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay because the cause of action and primary adjudication had taken place there, was not even broached before the Court in that matter. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has read copiously from the decision of the Supreme Court in S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 582 as well as Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, both of which deal with the doctrine of merger. This doctrine, however, will have no relevance or application to the question before us. We must assume that the order of the Adjudicating Authority had merged with that of the CESTAT. That is not the central issue b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
