9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oked, irrespective of the locate/situate of the assessee. Attention of the counsel for the respondents is drawn to Kusum Inglots Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India [ 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT ] where it was held that petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order or a finding of a Court or Tribunal or executive authority situated at Delhi, is maintainable at Delhi, though this Court, in exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens, may refuse to entertain the same and ask the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court. It was further held that when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Bench is of a different view, the need for referring the matter to a larger Bench, delaying the disposal of the matter, may arise. Subject to the orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice, list this petition before the Roster Bench, on 17th May, 2021. - W.P.(C) 5277/2021 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocates. Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Senior Standing Counsel. O R D E R [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] C.Ms. No. 16238/2021 16239/2021(both for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules. 2. The applications are disposed of. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was passed. 6. Instead of availing the remedy of appeal, this writ petition impugning the assessment order, has been filed. 7. On enquiry, both, the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice state that they are also not aware why this petition has been listed before this Bench, instead of before the Roster Bench i.e. the Tax Bench. Be that as it may, the counsel for the respondents contends that since the petitioner is an assessee in Chandigarh, the petition filed before this Court is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. It is also contended that similar issue/s as raised in this petition, is/are arising in different High Courts and which are taking their respective v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that of the appellate authority. Reference in this regard may also be made to Cement Workers Mandal Vs. Global Cements Limited (HMP Cements Limited) (2019) 20 SCC 517, holding, (a) Article 226 (2) of the Constitution empowers the High Court to entertain the writ petition if the cause of action to file such writ petition against the respondents in the said writ petition has arisen wholly or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court; and, (b) Clause (2) further empowers the High Court to issue any order, direction or writ as provided in Clause (1) of Article 226, in such a writ petition, notwithstanding that seat of Government or Authority against whom the writ petition is filed, does not fall within the territor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
