Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition on the footing that the impugned reclassification letter and demand were received at the petitioner's Calcutta office and thus gave rise to part cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Analysis: The impugned decision to reclassify the product and levy higher duty was taken in Rajasthan, but the order became operative only when it was communicated to the petitioner. The envelope and correspondence showed receipt at the Calcutta head office, and the demand for higher excise duty was thereby enforced against the petitioner within the jurisdiction of this Court. Receipt of the order or notice was therefore an integral part of the cause of action. The authorities cited against jurisdiction were distinguished on the ground that, on the facts, no part of the cause of action had arisen there. The subsequent departmental clarification, treating the product as falling under the lower-duty classification, also removed the underlying grievance.
Conclusion: Territorial jurisdiction existed in favour of the petitioner, and the writ petition was maintainable.