https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47975 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, and the mere location of the impugned authority within Delhi did not compel the High Court to entertain the writ petitions. Where the petitioners, underlying transactions, and show-cause notices were situated outside Delhi, and the substantial or significant part of the cause of action arose elsewhere, the Court could decline to exercise jurisdiction. The availability of an appropriate alternative forum supported refusal to entertain the petitions. en-us Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jun 2025 16:59:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47975 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, and the mere location of the impugned authority within Delhi did not compel the High Court to entertain the writ petitions. Where the petitioners, underlying transactions, and show-cause notices were situated outside Delhi, and the substantial or significant part of the cause of action arose elsewhere, the Court could decline to exercise jurisdiction. The availability of an appropriate alternative forum supported refusal to entertain the petitions. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47975