2008 (3) TMI 335 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer of appeal from Mumbai to Delhi
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court
3. Maintainability of the writ petition

Transfer of appeal from Mumbai to Delhi:
The Assessee sought transfer of the appeal from Mumbai to Delhi citing the age of the Managing Director as a reason for inability to travel. The Tribunal rejected the transfer application twice, and the review application was also dismissed. The High Court noted that the Assessee did not challenge the rejection of the transfer application for the second time. The Court emphasized that as a legal entity, the Assessee could have been represented by an authorized person, and it was not necessary for the Managing Director to appear personally at every hearing. The High Court concluded that since the original assessment order was from Mumbai and the impugned order was also from Mumbai, the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The High Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction concerning the petition. The Court observed that the Assessee, being a private limited company, could have been represented by an authorized person, and the physical presence of the Managing Director in Mumbai was not mandatory. The High Court held that due to the original assessment order being from Mumbai and the impugned order also being from Mumbai, the High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The High Court did not delve into the question of the maintainability of the writ petition when a statutory remedy of appeal was available. However, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Bombay High Court for suitable orders.

Maintainability of the writ petition:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, subject to the liberty granted to the Petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the Bombay High Court. The Court did not delve into the aspect of the maintainability of the writ petition in the presence of a statutory appeal remedy. The High Court's decision was based on the lack of territorial jurisdiction due to the location of the original assessment order and the impugned order. The Court emphasized the legal entity status of the Assessee and the possibility of representation by an authorized person, negating the necessity for the Managing Director's physical presence at every hearing.