Dismissing the petition the Court held that the merits of the case were not gone into by the court since the assessee and the assessing authorities were at Bangalore. Merely because the order in question had been passed by the Chennai Bench of the Settlement Commission, the cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, when the events leading to the filing of the proceedings before the Chennai Bench of the Settlement Commission and the parties to such proceedings were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Hence it would not be appropriate for the court to entertain the writ petition. Relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd v.UOI ( 2004) 168 ELT 3 (SC) and high Court observed that one of the questions considered by the Supreme Court was regarding Forum Convenience and it was pointed out that even if a small part of cause of action arises within territorial\u00a0 jurisdiction of the High Court , the same by itself may not be considered to be determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merits and in appropriate cases , the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by the doctrine of Forum Conveniens . Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed\u00a0 leaving it open to the assessee Company to approach the High Court of Karnataka\u00a0 for appropriate relief .\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Appeal against the single judge is dismissed by Division Bench .\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ( AY.1995-96, 1996-97)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 245C : Settlement Commission – Settlement of cases \u2013 Jurisdiction of High Court -Territorial Jurisdiction of Madras High Court \u2014 Order of Bench of Settlement Commission at Chennai \u2014 Petition not maintainable- Place where cause of action arises \u2013 Doctrine of Forum Conveniens . [ S. 132, 260A, Art , 226, 227 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14757","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3Q1","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14757","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14757"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14757\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22288,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14757\/revisions\/22288"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}