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

2012 (9) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 17 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) distinguished. - C.S.T.A. No. 26 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 8-4-2011 - N. Kumar and Ravi Malimath, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Kuljeet Bawan, Sr. Counsel for K. Sachindra Karanth, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri C. Shashikantha, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : N. Kumar, J.]. This appeals by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore [2009 (243) E.L.T. 622 (Tri. - Bang.)] against the order refusing to waive interest. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding a territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ats at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be changed in accordance with the provisions of the Order. Second, the Chief Justice of the High Court has no power to increase or decrease the areas in Oudh from time to time. The areas in Oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is no scope for changing the areas. Third, the Chief Justice has power under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order to direct in his discretion that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be herad at Allahabad. Any case or class of cases assessee these which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation given by the High Court that the word heard confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... said decision is an authority for the proposition that the place from where an appellate order or a revisional order is passed may give rise ot a part of cause of action although the original order was at a place outside the said area. When a part of the cause of action arises within one or the other High Court, it will be for the petitioner to choose his forum. 9. 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 Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by involving the doctrin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... age of the law laid down by it and which might suit him and thus he would be able to successfully evade the law laid down by the High Court of Bombay. 14. Furthermore, when an appeal is provide under a statute, Parliament must have thought of one High Court. 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 Court at the sweet will of the party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal. 15. In a case of this nature, therefore, the cause of action doctrine may not be invoked. 17. There cannot be any doubt wha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... estion taken to its logical conclusion, the same would lead to a great anomaly. It would also give rise to the problem of forum shopping. We may notice some examples to show that the determination of the appellate forum based upon the situs of the Tribunal would lead to a anomalous result. For example, an assessee affected by an assessment order in Bombay may invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it which may be contrary to judgments of the High Court of Bombay. This cannot be allowed. (See Suresh Desai and Associates v. CIT, 1998 (230) ITR 912 at 915-917 and CCE v. M/s. Technological Institute of Textile in 76 (1998) DLT 862 (DB). 7. Thus, we have three judgment of the Apex Court which .....

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