TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er vested under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Foreign Trade Policy (for short 'FTP') a scheme known and called as "Served From India Scheme" (for short 'SFIS') which provided for benefits in the form of duty credit scrip certificates equitant to an amount of 10% of such foreign exchange earnings, to Indian "Service Providers" engaged in exporting certain services and who had a total free foreign exchange earnings of atleast Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) in a financial year. It is the contention of the petitioner that such scrips obtained by the Indian "Service Providers" under the SFIS scheme could be used for import of any capital goods, spares, professional equipment, office equipment, offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for quashing of the notice. 6. Per contra Central Government Standing Counsel Sri. Aditya Singh appearing for respondents has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition contending inter-alia under Section 5 of the FTDR Act or under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition since no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and he would draw the attention of this Court that the registered office of the petitioner is also at Mumbai and the show cause notice impugned in the petition is also issued by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, Mumbai and as such this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has rushed to this Court. Show cause notice is of the year 2014 and after a lapse of 4 years from the date of issue of said notice. Petitioner has approached this Court. No grounds or reasons has been assigned for such inordinate delay. 9. As could be seen from the records, the show cause notice has been issued in the year 2014, the Policy Interpretation Committee under the Chairmanship of Director General of Foreign Trade has interpreted the policy on 27.12.2011 itself and on the premise that the proceedings are pending, petitioner claims to have approached the Court and this would not be a good ground to entertain the present writ petition, which has been filed belatedly. A litigant who seeks to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in part, within the jurisdiction of more than one High Court, petitioner would be entitled to approach either of the Courts, where such cause of action arose. 11. In the instant case undisputedly the registered office of the petitioner is located at Mumbai. The show cause notice impugned in the writ petition has been issued by the Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade at Mumbai. Duty draw backs have been drawn at Mumbai Port. Thus, the entire cause of action having arisen within the territory of High Court of Mumbai. Hence, petitioner cannot be heard to contend that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226(1). Merely because petitioner is also having a hotel at Bengaluru amongst being run by i....