AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nainar Sundaram, J.—This writ petition coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support
thereof the order of the High Court, dated 21-2-1980 and made herein, and the counter affidavits filed herein and the records of the respondents
relating to the Order in 222/1979, dated 13-12-1979 and Order No. III/9/332/75-A1, dated 26-7-1975 on the file of the third and fourth
respondent respectively comprised in the return of the respective respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments
of Mr. T.T. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on
behalf of the Respondents the court made the following order:-
The point involved in this writ petition has already been answered in favour of the petitioner by a Bench of this Court in Union of India, Resp. by
the Collector of Central Excise v. Aruna Sugars Ltd. [W.A. Nos. 303, 309 and 311 of 1980 - judgment, dated 12-8-1985 - reported in 1985
WLR 669]. In view of this, this writ petition has got to be allowed. However, Mr. T. Somasundaram, learned Additional Central Government
Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents, would contend that the factory of the petitioner is within the jurisdiction of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, and hence this Court shall not show the indulgence of interference. The petitioner is a company having its head office in Madras.
It is not claimed that the factory itself as an independent entity to suffer a separate assessment. This contention with regard to jurisdiction is not
tenable. Hence this writ petition is allowed. No costs.