https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465695 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 may arise where the impugned act produces legal injury within the forum State, even if the clearance occurred elsewhere. The associate distributors were not necessary parties, and the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the alleged unequal treatment. On the customs scheme, the duty-free import privilege attached only to the State Trading Corporation; it could not be extended by contract to associate distributors who, in substance, answered the description of importers under the Customs Act, 1962. The resulting duty-free clearance was treated as illegal. Delay was not treated as fatal where the grievance involved continuing infringement of Article 14 and fundamental rights. en-us Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 14:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465695 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 may arise where the impugned act produces legal injury within the forum State, even if the clearance occurred elsewhere. The associate distributors were not necessary parties, and the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the alleged unequal treatment. On the customs scheme, the duty-free import privilege attached only to the State Trading Corporation; it could not be extended by contract to associate distributors who, in substance, answered the description of importers under the Customs Act, 1962. The resulting duty-free clearance was treated as illegal. Delay was not treated as fatal where the grievance involved continuing infringement of Article 14 and fundamental rights. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465695