Dismissing the writ appeal, that the appellant was an assessee on the file of the Dy. CIT, Bangalore. The appellate authority, before whom the assessee filed the appeal was the CIT, Bangalore. Therefore, the 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 in Chennai did not call for interference, by the Madras High Court. The doctrine of dominus litis or doctrine of situs of the Appellate Tribunal do not go together. A dominus litis indicates that the 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. If the cause of action doctrine is given effect to, invariably more than one High Court may have jurisdiction, which is not contemplated. (WP. No. 717 of 2020 dt. 14-9-2020)
Mulberry Silks Ltd v. Settlement Commission (IT and Wt.) (2020) 428 ITR 136/ ( 2021 ) 277 Taxman 361 / 201 DTR 49/ 320 CTR 604 (Mad.)(HC)Editorial: Order of single Judge is affirmed Mulberry Silks Ltd v.ITST (2020) 426 ITR 444 / 117 Taxmann.com 62/ ( 2021) 201 DTR 56/ 320 CTR 611 (Mad.) (HC)
S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Writ-Territorial jurisdiction of High Court-Assessment and appeal in Karnataka-Order of Settlement Commission in Chennai-Madras High Court had no jurisdiction to hear writ petition. [Central Excise Act, 1944, S. 35G, 35H, 36(b), Art. 226.]