Territorial jurisdiction challenge failed where the petitioner's head office was in Madras and the factory was not an independent entity.

A prior Bench decision had already decided the writ point in favour of the petitioner, and the Court followed that ruling. The objection that territorial jurisdiction lay only with the Andhra Pradesh High Court was rejected because the petitioner-company's head office was in Madras and the factory was not shown to be an independent entity requiring separate assessment. On those facts, the territorial jurisdiction challenge was untenable, and the writ petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable and liable to be allowed in view of the earlier decision answering the point in favour of the petitioner, and whether the objection to territorial jurisdiction could defeat relief.

Analysis: The point raised in the writ petition had already been decided in favour of the petitioner by a prior Bench decision of the Court. The objection that the factory was within the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was rejected because the petitioner-company had its head office in Madras, and the factory was not shown to be an independent entity requiring separate assessment. On these facts, the territorial jurisdiction objection was held to be untenable.

Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner, and the jurisdiction objection was rejected.

---