Territorial jurisdiction and revenue bar limited original civil jurisdiction over seizure, confiscation and sale of dutiable goods.

Territorial jurisdiction was unavailable because the seizure and detention occurred outside Madras, and the confiscation order made there was not the effective wrong complained of; the cause of action was complete where the seizure took place. The expressions "resides", "carries on business" and "personally works for gain" were held not to extend to Government as an entity for Clause 12 purposes, so the State could not be treated as a resident or business operator within the court's limits. The suit was also barred because seizure, confiscation and sale of smuggled or dutiable goods were treated as directly connected with collection of customs revenue, attracting the statutory prohibition on original jurisdiction in revenue matters.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court on the footing that the cause of action arose wholly or in part within its limits, or because the defendant could be treated as dwelling or carrying on business there; (ii) Whether the suit was barred on the ground that it concerned revenue or acts done in the collection of revenue.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court on the footing that the cause of action arose wholly or in part within its limits, or because the defendant could be treated as dwelling or carrying on business there.

Analysis: The seizure of the goods took place outside Madras and the order of confiscation made at Madras was not, by itself, the effective dealing complained of. The wrong, if any, was complete where the seizure and detention occurred. The words "resides", "carries on business" and "personally works for gain" in Clause 12 were held not to apply to Government as an entity in the manner contended for, since those expressions contemplate natural persons or commercial bodies and not the State.

Conclusion: The High Court had no territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred on the ground that it concerned revenue or acts done in the collection of revenue.

Analysis: Seizure, confiscation and sale of smuggled or dutiable goods were held to be directly connected with the collection of customs and therefore with the collection of revenue. The statutory bar on original jurisdiction in revenue matters was treated as applicable even though the proceedings were in the nature of penalty and not merely a preliminary step toward assessment.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by Section 106(2) of the Government of India Act.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's suit could not be entertained by the High Court, both for want of territorial jurisdiction and because the claim fell within the statutory prohibition against original jurisdiction in revenue matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Expressions conferring territorial jurisdiction on a court do not extend to Government as a person carrying on business or dwelling there, and a suit challenging seizure, confiscation and sale of dutiable goods is a matter concerning the collection of revenue when the statute withdraws original jurisdiction in such matters.

---