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; tax demands quashed absent underlying orders despite RTI and court directions.

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 Petitioner was asked to pay the outstanding demand, inter alia, 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. The said notice was in the name of the erstwhile entity, namely, Flextronics Software Systems Limited.

(c) The Petitioner contends that it was not aware of any such outstanding demands. Upon receipt of the recovery notice, the Petitioner filed applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the RTI Act”) seeking copies of the orders giving rise to such demands.

(d) The Petitioner received a reply from Respondent No.2 stating that for A.Y.2001-02 and 2002-03, the demands were on account of rectification/intimation orders, but no such orders were provided. Instead, illegible screenshots of the computation sheets from the system were furnished. For A.Y.2003-04, it was stated that records were not available.

(e) The Petitioner preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, wherein directions were issued to Respondent No.2 to furnish full information. Despite such directions, no orders were supplied.

(f) In these circumstances, the Petitioner contends that these demands are non-existent and the recovery notice is bad in law.

4. This matter came for hearing first on 24.02.2025. On the said date, this Court passed an order noting the objection of the Respondents regarding territorial jurisdiction. It recorded that the Petitioner had produced an order of transfer of jurisdiction dated 13.12.2023 from Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1 i.e., ACIT/DCIT Circle-1(1), Pune. Accordingly, this Court directed Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file affidavits by 13.03.2025 not only on the aspect of merits, but also on the issue of jurisdiction, and also appraise the Court on the status of the transfer of records. On 24.02.2025, this Court also issued notice to Respondent Nos. 2 and 4.

5. The Petitioner has effected service on the Delhi officer (Respondent No.2) and an affidavit of service to that effect has been placed on record. Despite service and the spe