TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of this court to entertain the petition. It was submitted that the subject matter of challenge in the present petition is an order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority against which, appeal lies before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), and against the order of the Tribunal, the appeal lies to the High Court of Bombay in view of the provisions of section 36(b)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as the unit of the petitioners in relation t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petition and that the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 3. In response to the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Prakash Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that two or more High Courts can have jurisdiction in relation to the same dispute if any part of the cause of action arises within their territorial jurisdiction. It was submitted that in the present case, the show cause came to be issued by the Commissionerate at Vapi, the entire investigation has taken place at Vapi including recording of statements of Mr. Ajit Kumar Tripathy and Mr. S. P. Kalsi; the impugned order has also been passed by the second respondent at Vapi within the territorial jurisdict....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority suffers from a jurisdictional error. It was submitted that the adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to demand something in relation to which there was no show cause notice. It was submitted that since the issue regarding the credit having lapsed on 17.12.2008 did not form part of the show cause notice, the petitioner had no opportunity of being heard in respect of such issue, therefore, the impugned order also suffers from the breach of principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the show cause notice was issued on 19.12.2013, which is clearly beyond a period of five years and hence, the demand itself is time b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and not before this court. However, this being a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the considerations while examining the question of territorial jurisdiction would be different. Insofar as an appeal is concerned, as held by the Supreme Court in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra), determination of the jurisdiction of a High Court on the touchstone of sections 35G and 35H of the Act should be considered only on the basis of statutory provisions and not anything else. However, keeping in view of the expression "cause of action" used in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction thereof accrues within the jurisdiction of the court, the cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) has also held that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merits. In appropriate cases, the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The expression "forum conveniens" as defined in Black's Law Dictionary is "the state of judicial district in which an action may be most appropriately brought, considering the best interest of the parties and the public". 6. Keeping in mind the above doctrine, this court is of the view that ....