Mere Presence Of Finance Ministry, CBIC In Delhi Doesn't Confer It Jurisdiction To Entertain Petition: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the mere presence of the Ministry of Finance and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in Delhi does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court, when the cause of action arises from summons and demands issued by authorities located outside Delhi.

The Division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed a writ petition filed by an exporter challenging summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Zonal Unit at Ahmedabad and a consequential demand raised by customs authorities, on the ground that the petition was not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court also held that it was not maintainable in the light of the earlier proceeding. 

The petitioner-exporter was issued summons in connection with an investigation relating to export incentives and classification issues of its handicrafts goods. The petitioner had also assailed the demand raised by jurisdictional customs authorities.

To invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the petitioner relied on the fact that the Ministry of Finance and CBIC, which exercise administrative control over the DRI and customs formations, are situated in Delhi.

Rejecting the plea, the High Court held that territorial jurisdiction in writ proceedings is determined by the place where the cause of action arises, and not merely by the location of superior or controlling offices of the respondent authorities.

The Court observed that the impugned summons were issued by the DRI Zonal Unit at Ahmedabad, and the demand was raised by customs authorities outside Delhi. Therefore, the entire cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

“Merely because the offices of respondent nos. 1 to 5 are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, by itself, will not give any leverage to the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction of this Court…the fact remains that the summons were issued by respondent no. 9, whose office is situated at Ahmedabad. The petitioner received the said summons at Agra, Uttar Pradesh. There is no remote connection with the cause of action having accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court,” it observed.

The court also noted that the petitioner had earlier approached the Court challenging similar summons and had been granted interim protection subject to cooperation. As there was no subsequent development warranting a re-look at the matter, and that the petitioner had failed to comply with the directions issued in the earlier round, the court held that the present petition was not maintainable. 

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

The court also clarified that the earlier interim protection granted to the petitioner stood automatically vacated in view of the petitioner's failure to comply with the directions issued therein. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Ajay Veer Singh

For Respondents: Advocates Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with Rajkumar Maurya and Krishna Chaitanya for R-1 and R-2. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with Arya Suresh Nair, Shreya Lamba and Dhananjay Goutham