Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
The dominant issue was whether part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a writ challenging anti-dumping final findings on grounds of violation of natural justice and arbitrariness. Applying the test that only facts having a direct nexus with the lis constitute cause of action, the Court held that alleged adverse business impact or commercial engagements within the State were not integral to establishing the asserted infringement of fair procedure under Article 14, and the challenge would survive even if those averments were removed. Consequently, no part of the cause of action arose within its territory, and the writ was not maintainable; the petition was dismissed without examining merits or alternative remedy. - HC
The dominant issue was whether part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a writ challenging anti-dumping final findings on grounds of violation of natural justice and arbitrariness. Applying the test that only facts having a direct nexus with the lis constitute cause of action, the Court held that alleged adverse business impact or commercial engagements within the State were not integral to establishing the asserted infringement of fair procedure under Article 14, and the challenge would survive even if those averments were removed. Consequently, no part of the cause of action arose within its territory, and the writ was not maintainable; the petition was dismissed without examining merits or alternative remedy. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.