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
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, 1961 (“the IT Act”).
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(a) Vide an order dated 16.05.2007, passed by the Delhi High Court in Company Petition No.49-51 of 2007, Flextronics Software Systems Limited (“erstwhile entity”) got amalgamated with Kappa Investment Limited. The name of the said company was subsequently changed to Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited. Thereafter, M/s.Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited got amalgamated with the Petitioner vide order dated 23.12.2022 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in CP (CAA)/183/MB/2022 and CA (CAA) /56/MB/2022.
(b) In February 2023, the Petitioner received a notice under Section 220 of the Act [dated 05.02.2023] from Respondent No.2. In the said notice, the P
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
