By TIOL News Service

BANGALORE, JULY 21, 2015: THIS is an appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment passed by the Single Judge of Karnataka High Court. By the order impugned, the single judge held that mere location of a registered office or receipt of communication would not give rise for cause of action and dismissed the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was held that as the consignment was received at Delhi Air Cargo Complex and the writ petitioner took delivery of the said consignment at Delhi and transported to Uttarakhand , no part of cause of action, either fully or in part, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Karnataka High Court.

The writ petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of gold jewellery and gold products. They imported gold at Delhi Air Cargo Complex from Australia. The Commissioner of Customs, by notice dated May 29, 2013, inter alia, directed the writ petitioner to submit the packaging list from the mining company in respect of the past imports of gold dore bars from the Mint in respect of the concluded assessments which is under challenge.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

The consignments were received by the writ petitioner at Delhi air cargo complex. They were cleared by the authorities at Delhi, after obtaining clarification from the Board of Customs. The consignments were cleared for home consumption upon acceptance of the duties as mentioned in the notification without any demur. The writ petitioner dispatched those gold dore bars to Uttarakhand . The shipments were refined and the refined gold bars were brought back from Uttarakhand to Bengaluru for sale and manufacture of gold jewellery. In respect of such concluded assessment, the said notices dated May 29, 2013 and June 18, 2013 were issued to the writ petitioner in the Bengaluru address. The receipts of those notices at Bengaluru is not disputed. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner prayed for quashing of the notice dated June 18, 2013, apprehending coercive actions by the respondents. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked if even a fraction of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. Against the aforesaid background, it is difficult to uphold the view taken by the single Judge that this court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

(See 2015-TIOL-1628-HC-KAR-CUS)