Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B.P.COLABAWALLA, FIRDOSH P.POONIWALLA
Capegemini Technology Services India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges post-amalgamation tax recovery demands. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondents object to bombay hc jurisdiction. (Para 6) |
| 3. petitioner asserts jurisdiction via s.127 transfer, art226(2). (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. pre-1963 art226 limits jurisdiction to authority location. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. art226(2) confers jurisdiction where cause arises partly. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. part cause of action in pune; jurisdiction upheld. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. demands quashed absent underlying orders/records. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 8. petition allowed; rule absolute, no costs. (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the alleged outstanding demands of Rs.3,28,785/- for A.Y.2001-02, Rs.1,24,577/- for A.Y.2002-03 and Rs.28,87,714/- for A.Y.2003-04 and the recovery notice dated 05.02.2023 issued under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act
High Court jurisdiction under Article 226(2) exists if part cause of action (notice receipt, impact on local successor, post-transfer recovery) arises within territory despite outstation authority; t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'cause of action' and the concept of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to the notice....
Point of Law : Territorial jurisdiction - Prior to Constitutional (Fifteenth Amendment Act, 1963, concept of cause of action was alien for adjudication of disputes by High Court under Article 226 of ....
Writ petitions against quasi-judicial authorities are not maintainable if statutory remedies are available unless exceptional circumstances like natural justice violations are proven.
High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 is contingent upon the presence of a cause of action within its territorial limits, as clarified by recent rulings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Consti....
The court highlighted that mere receipt of a rejection letter does not establish territorial jurisdiction if the cancellation decision originates from another jurisdiction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
