9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi since the Tribunal at New Delhi exercised jurisdiction in respect of cases arising within the territorial limits of Uttar Pradesh, National Territory of Delhi and the States of Maharashtra. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant is situated in Gurgaon and the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax at Gurgaon. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Ambica Industries cannot be pressed by the Appellant to contend that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi would have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The jurisdiction to hear the appeal would lie with the Regional Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh. The records of the appeal shall, therefore, be sent to the Regional Bench o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were returned by the Chandigarh Regional Bench of the Tribunal to the Principal Bench at New Delhi by a letter dated 19 December, 2017. The matter has, accordingly, been placed before the Bench. 3. Shri J.K. Mittal learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has pointed out that the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 23 October, 2013 was issued by the Commissioner in the office of the Commissioner of Service Tax at New Delhi and it also required the Appellant to file a reply to the Commissioner of Service Tax Commissionerate at New Delhi. Learned Counsel also pointed out that the Appellant is registered with the Service Tax Commissionerate at Delhi and the Service Tax audit of the Appellant was also conducted by the Officers of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorised Representative of the Department have been considered. 6. A show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax at New Delhi on 28 February, 2017 calling upon the Appellant to submit a reply before the Commissioner of Service Tax at New Delhi. This show cause notice was issued on the basis of an audit conducted by the Officers of the Service Tax Commissionerate at New Delhi in June 2013. A perusal of the order dated 28 February, 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax at Gurgaon indicates that after the issuance of the show cause notice, there was a restructuring of the Service Tax Commissionerate, as a consequence of which the jurisdiction of the Appellant fell under the Service Tax Commissionerate at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu Kashmir. The Regional Bench at Chandigarh was established by a Notification No. 02/2015 dated 4 November, 2015 and it started functioning from 1 November, 2015. 8. According to learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Principal Bench at Delhi would have the jurisdiction because not only was the audit of the Appellant conducted by the Officers of Service Tax Commissionerate at New Delhi, but the Show Cause Notice was also issued by the Commissioner at New Delhi and it called upon the Appellant to submit a reply before the Commissioner at New Delhi. It is no doubt true that the show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax at New Delhi but, subsequently by Trade Notice of 02/2014 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order or the revisional order is sourced. If, thus, a cause of action arises within one or the other High Court, the petitioner shall be the dominus litis. Indisputably, if this set of reasoning is to be accepted, the impugned judgment as also the decision rendered in Bombay Snuff (supra) would not be correct. Before dilating on the said proposition of law it may be noticed that the decision of a Tribunal would be binding on the Assessing Authority. It 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. 13. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, exercises jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant is situated in Gurgaon and the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax at Gurgaon. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Ambica Industries cannot be pressed by the Appellant to contend that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi would have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The jurisdiction to hear the appeal would lie with the Regional Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh. 11. The records of the appeal shall, therefore, be sent to the Regional Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh. The Office is directed to take necessary steps. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 September, 2019) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
