Facts: The Petitioner, Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd, challenged tax recovery notices issued under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04. These demands pertained to an erstwhile entity that had eventually amalgamated with the Petitioner. The Petitioner claimed it was unaware of these demands and, upon filing RTI applications, was only provided with illegible system screenshots for two years, while records for the third year were stated to be unavailable. No formal assessment or rectification orders were produced by the Revenue despite directions from the Court and the RTI Appellate Authority. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, arguing that since the impugned notices were issued by an officer in Delhi, the Bombay High Court could not entertain the matter.Procedural Posture: The Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the recovery notices and a Writ of Mandamus to direct the withdrawal of the demands.Issue: 1. Does the Bombay High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition when the original notices were issued in Delhi, but the jurisdiction over the assessee was subsequently transferred to Pune? 2. Can tax demands be sustained in the absence of the underlying assessment or rectification orders?Holding: 1. Yes, the Court has jurisdiction as a part of the cause of action arose in Maharashtra and the current jurisdictional officer is in Pune. 2. No, a demand cannot be sustained if the Revenue fails to produce the underlying orders creating such a demand.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that under Article 226(2), jurisdiction is conferred if even a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the Court's territory. Since the Petitioner’s registered office is in Pune and the effects of the recovery notice are felt there, the cause of action arose in Maharashtra. Furthermore, the transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 of the IT Act rendered the Delhi officer "functus officio", making the Pune officer the only authority capable of granting relief. On merits, the Court applied the principle that the Revenue cannot recover taxes based on "non-existent" demands; the failure to produce the actual orders despite multiple opportunities led to an adverse inference that no such valid orders exist.