https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74148 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) arose because an order passed outside the jurisdiction directly affected the exporters' business carried on within it. Review standing was not defeated merely because the registering authority sought review, but the review power vested exclusively in the Chief Controller and could not be exercised by the Additional Chief Controller without established delegation. The review order was also invalid because it reappreciated evidence and substituted a merits-based conclusion for the appellate decision; review is confined to recognised grounds such as an error apparent or comparable grave mistake. The petition succeeded, the review order was quashed, and the appellate restoration of registration remained operative. en-us Wed, 12 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74148 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) arose because an order passed outside the jurisdiction directly affected the exporters' business carried on within it. Review standing was not defeated merely because the registering authority sought review, but the review power vested exclusively in the Chief Controller and could not be exercised by the Additional Chief Controller without established delegation. The review order was also invalid because it reappreciated evidence and substituted a merits-based conclusion for the appellate decision; review is confined to recognised grounds such as an error apparent or comparable grave mistake. The petition succeeded, the review order was quashed, and the appellate restoration of registration remained operative. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74148