The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3839 (Mad-HC) : (2020) 428 ITR 0136 : (2021) 277 TAXMAN 0361

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 260A

Where Doctrine of dominus litis or doctrine of situs of the Appellate Tribunal do not go together and a dominus litis indicates that suitor has more than one option, whereas situs of an Appellate Tribunal refers to only one High Court, moreover, situs of a Tribunal might vary from time to time and determination of jurisdiction of High Court should be based on the relevant Statute and Appellate Authority before whom the assessee filed the appeal was Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Appeal (High Court) - Jurisdiction of Court entertaining this appeal - Order of Settlement Commission -

This intra-Court appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by Single Judge in W.P. No. 33412 of 2006 and the said writ petition was filed by assessee as against the order passed by Settlement Commission. However, Single Judge, by order, dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Assessee submitted that the seat of the Settlement Commission was in one State, which had jurisdiction to settle cases arising from various States and one of the States where assessee was registered and on account of the order passed by Settlement Commission, the entire matter gets transferred to Settlement Commission, which is purely within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, writ petition ought to have been entertained and the matter ought to have been decided on merits. Held: Doctrine of dominus litis or doctrine of situs of the Appellate Tribunal do not go together and a dominus litis indicates that suitor has more than one option, whereas the situs of an Appellate Tribunal refers to only one High Court wherein the appeal can be preferred. As pointed out that situs of a Tribunal might vary from time to time and determination of jurisdiction of the High Court should be based on the relevant Statute and that the Parliament never contemplated to have a situation of this nature. Appellate Authority, before whom the assessee filed the appeal was Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition on the ground that due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, the order passed by the Settlement Commission did not call for interference. Thus, appeal was dismissed.

Relied:Canon Steels (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs (Export Promotion) (2007) 218 E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) : (2009) 15 S.T.R. 97 (S.C.) : 2007 TaxPub(EX) 2563 Sanjos Jewellers v. Syndicate Bank (2007) 5 CTC 305

REFERRED : CIT v. S. Sivaramakrishna Iyer in (1968) 70 ITR 860 (Madras) : 1968 TaxPub(DT) 0364 (Mad-HC) Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT, in (1978) 113 ITR 817 (Del.) : 1978 TaxPub(DT) 0887 (Del-HC) Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2004) 168 ELT 3 : 2004 TaxPub(EX) 1255 Ambica Industries v. Commr. of Central Excise 2007 TaxPub(EX) 1421 Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1975) 2 SCC 671 (SC) M/s. Mulberry Silks Limited (formerly M/s. Shakashambana Silks Exports (P) Ltd.) v. Settlement Commission (IT & WT), The CIT, The Dy. CIT 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2389 (Mad-HC) R.T. Industries & Ors. v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr. (2018) 98 Taxmann.com 236 (Del-HC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6454 (Del-HC)

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. :

IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT