9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k of territorial jurisdiction. 2. The appellant is a non-banking finance company having its registered office in Kolkata and is engaged in the business of financial services. It has centralised registration with the Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata and is regularly submitting returns with the Service Tax Department in Kolkata Commissionerate. The appellant claimed that with regard to the relevant period i.e. 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 in respect of which the impugned summons were issued by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Assistant Director, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence situated at Kochi, Kerala, enquiries had been initiated at the behest of the respondent No. 3 i.e. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata as well as CERA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. 3 as well as by CERA associated with the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. 7. In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 567 = 2001 (134) E.L.T. 596 (S.C.), it has been held that each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis or dispute involved in the case, facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. 8. In National Textile Corpn. Ltd. (supra) relied o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany, AIR 1941 Cal; Mandal Jalan v. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. M/s. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN 122; S.S. Jain & Co. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) CHN 445; M/s. New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 126)." 12. Although it has been pleaded that the appellant-company had been subjected to alleged similar enquiries at the behest of respondent No. 3 and other authorities in Kolkata, we are of the considered view that in the factual matrix of the instant case as impugned summons had been issued by respondent No. 1 authority fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
