https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758215 Bombay HC held that writ petitions challenging revisionary authority orders can be filed either before the HC where original adjudication occurred or where the revisionary authority is located. Applying Sri Nasiruddin precedent, the court ruled that petitioners have forum conveniens choice when cause of action arises partially within different jurisdictions. Since the revisionary authority operates within Bombay HC's territorial jurisdiction and appellate orders merged into impugned orders, petitions were maintainable before the Principal Seat. The doctrine of merger principle supports jurisdiction where appellate authority is located, while Article 226(2) allows concurrent jurisdiction where cause of action partially arises. en-us Thu, 05 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Sep 2024 12:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758215 Bombay HC held that writ petitions challenging revisionary authority orders can be filed either before the HC where original adjudication occurred or where the revisionary authority is located. Applying Sri Nasiruddin precedent, the court ruled that petitioners have forum conveniens choice when cause of action arises partially within different jurisdictions. Since the revisionary authority operates within Bombay HC's territorial jurisdiction and appellate orders merged into impugned orders, petitions were maintainable before the Principal Seat. The doctrine of merger principle supports jurisdiction where appellate authority is located, while Article 226(2) allows concurrent jurisdiction where cause of action partially arises. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758215