2021 (3) TMI 695 - HC - Central Excise

Writ appeal challenging Customs Settlement Commission's order dismissed, emphasizing territorial jurisdiction. Importance of involving jurisdictional Commissioner highlighted.

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the Customs & Excise Settlement Commission's order, emphasizing territorial jurisdiction. The ... Maintainability of petition - Territorial Jurisdiction - it is contended that appellant/assessee, being an assessee in the State of Karnataka, have to avail the remedy before the High Court of Karnataka - HELD THAT:- Identical issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court, in M/S. MULBERRY SILKS LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. SHAKASHAMBANA SILKS EXPORTS (P) LTD.) VERSUS THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (IT & WT) , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-III, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE 4 (1) (INV.) [2020 (9) TMI 771 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and it was held that though the seat of the Settlement Commission is at Chennai, the writ petition could not be maintained before this Court as the assessee was registered with the Department in another State. Appeal dismissed. Issues: Jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ appeal challenging the order of the Customs & Excise Settlement Commission regarding settlement amount and the appropriate forum for seeking remedy.Jurisdiction of the High Court:The writ appeal challenged an order passed by the Customs & Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai, regarding a settlement application. The appellant sought a direction to dispose of the application on merits. The High Court, in considering the jurisdiction, noted that the Settlement Commission's office location is crucial for determining the court's jurisdiction. Referring to a previous case, it was established that even though the Commission is based in Chennai, the writ petition could not be entertained by the Madras High Court due to the appellant being registered in a different state. The High Court emphasized the importance of territorial jurisdiction in such matters, citing relevant legal precedents.Factual Aspects and Commissioner's Involvement:The appellant raised several factual aspects in the writ petition related to the settlement amount offered, requiring consideration after hearing the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore. The High Court highlighted the necessity of involving the Commissioner in such matters, as demonstrated in previous decisions. The court emphasized the significance of allowing the concerned Commissioner to participate in the proceedings to ensure a thorough examination of the issues raised by the appellant.Application of Legal Precedents:The High Court referenced a decision in the case of C.Ramesh Vs. The Director General of Police and a Division Bench ruling on the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to support its decision. These legal precedents guided the court in affirming that the writ petition was not maintainable before the Madras High Court due to jurisdictional constraints. The court's decision was further reinforced by the earlier judgments that clarified the approach to determining territorial jurisdiction in similar cases.Conclusion and Remedies:Ultimately, the High Court declined to interfere with the order passed in the writ petition, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Appeal. However, the appellant was granted the opportunity to pursue other available remedies under the provisions of the Act before the appropriate forum or court. The court concluded by closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition without imposing any costs on the parties involved.