Territorial jurisdiction failure vitiates adjudication and recovery notice; proceedings cannot stand when issued by the wrong authority.

An adjudication order and consequential recovery notice issued by the Bengaluru North West Commissionerate were set aside because that authority lacked territorial jurisdiction for the relevant financial years. The challenge was confined to competence, and the respondent accepted the jurisdictional objection. The operative principle applied was that an order passed without territorial jurisdiction cannot be sustained, and any recovery notice founded on such an order must also fall. The competent jurisdictional authority was left free to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order and recovery notice issued by the Bengaluru North West Commissionerate were liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the competence of the Bengaluru North West Commissionerate to proceed against the petitioner for the relevant financial years. The respondent accepted the jurisdictional objection. The dispute therefore turned on whether the impugned order and consequential recovery notice could survive when issued by an authority lacking territorial jurisdiction, notwithstanding the liberty of the proper jurisdictional authority to continue proceedings.

Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order and recovery notice were set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was disposed of by annulling the impugned actions of the Bengaluru North West Commissionerate, while leaving the competent authority free to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed by an authority without territorial jurisdiction cannot be sustained, and any consequential recovery notice founded on such order must also fall.

---