TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court could issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to an authority that exercised the impugned quasi-judicial powers outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction.
Analysis: The application sought to quash an order passed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Shillong. The jurisdictional objection turned on the reach of Article 226, which requires that the act complained of and the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power must be within the territories over which the High Court has jurisdiction. The authority's residence at Shillong was not sufficient; the decisive factor was where the impugned power was exercised. As the seizure and confiscation were made outside the Court's territorial limits, the conditions for issuance of certiorari were not satisfied.
Conclusion: The High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to issue the writ, and the petition was returned for presentation to the proper Court.
Final Conclusion: The proceeding was not maintainable before the High Court because the challenged quasi-judicial action occurred outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: For a writ of certiorari under Article 226, the impugned judicial or quasi-judicial act must have been done within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court; mere presence or residence of the authority within the jurisdiction is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
