Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Anil Singhal, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Directorate of Income Tax Investigation and CBDT authorities to conduct a time-bound investigation based on Tax Evasion Petitions (TEPs) submitted by him against certain firms.

The petitioner claimed to act in public interest. However, it was revealed that:

  • The alleged entities were linked to his father-in-law.
  • There existed a family dispute regarding settlement of accounts involving legal heirs, including the petitioner’s wife.
  • The petition was not filed as a proper Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and did not comply with procedural rules.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a petitioner can seek a writ of mandamus to compel tax authorities to act on Tax Evasion Petitions.
  2. Whether such a petition, motivated by personal disputes, amounts to abuse of process of law.
  3. Whether the Income Tax Informants Reward Scheme, 2018 creates an enforceable legal right to approach the Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner argued that tax authorities failed to act on complaints of tax evasion and benami transactions.
  • He sought judicial intervention to ensure investigation within a fixed timeframe.
  • Relied on the Income Tax Informants Reward Scheme, 2018, implying entitlement to action by authorities.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The respondents opposed the petition, highlighting the absence of any enforceable legal right for the petitioner to demand investigation through Court.
  • It was implied that the petition lacked bona fide public interest and was motivated by personal grievances.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Court found that:
    • The petition was not a genuine PIL and failed to comply with PIL rules.
    • The petitioner had a direct personal interest, arising from family disputes.
    • The petition was filed to coerce settlement of private claims, not to serve public interest.
  • The Court held:

Use of judicial process for personal gain or coercion is abuse of process of law.

  • It further clarified:
    • The Informants Reward Scheme does not confer a right to seek mandamus.
    • Courts cannot be used to force investigative action merely on complaints.
  • Final Order:
    Petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to take steps under the Informants Scheme, if applicable.

Important Clarifications by the Court

  • Filing of tax evasion complaints does not automatically grant locus standi to seek judicial directions.
  • Mandamus cannot be issued unless there is a clear statutory duty and corresponding legal right.
  • Courts will strictly prevent misuse of PIL jurisdiction for personal or collateral purposes.

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2021:DHC:20-DB/RSE05012021CW542021_181021.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.