2016 (7) TMI 1630 - HC - Companies Law

Seeking to direct the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Investigation Team of the Income Tax Department to take action on the complaints sent by him as against the companies - HELD THAT - It appears that the writ petitioner has virtually declared a war on the contesting private respondent, in different forums. But, unfortunately, for the contesting respondents, the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) has come up with the counter affidavit, indicating that some investigation is in progress. According to Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel, this investigation need not necessarily be at the instance of the writ petitioner. Even an enemy, could provide the trigger point for an investigation. If a mandamus is sought from a Court, the Court would certainly reject a prayer of this nature made by a person, who camouflages a private cause under the garb of a public cause - But once the official respondents have taken cognizance and initiated some action, the same cannot be prevented even if we condemn the action of the writ petitioners. Therefore, we do not wish to get into the details of the litigation as between the petitioner and the contesting respondents. In view of the statement made on oath by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), no orders are necessary in these writ petitions - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking Writs of mandamus to direct Central Board of Direct Taxes and Income Tax Department to take action on complaints against respondent companies.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking Writs of mandamus to direct the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Investigation Team of the Income Tax Department to take action on complaints against certain companies. The petitioner subscribed to a chit floated by one of the companies and cited other companies as respondents in the petitions. The Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) submitted a counter affidavit stating that the complaint filed by the petitioner is being dealt with as a Tax Evasion Petition, which is under confidential investigation initiated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The investigation is ongoing, and the petitioner was informed that the process cannot be disclosed during progress.

The contesting respondents argued that the petitioner, after becoming a member of the chit group and entering into an agreement for the purchase of a plot, started filing numerous cases against the companies in the group. They presented volumes of orders from various courts to support their claim of harassment by the petitioner. Despite the contesting respondents' grievances, the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) confirmed that an investigation is in progress, which may not necessarily be solely due to the petitioner's actions. The court acknowledged that even an enemy could trigger an investigation, and once official respondents initiate action, it cannot be prevented, even if the petitioner's actions are condemned.

The court emphasized that if a person seeks a mandamus from the court, it should not be granted if the person disguises a private cause as a public one. However, since the official respondents have already taken cognizance and initiated action based on the investigation, the court refrained from delving into the details of the litigation between the petitioner and the contesting respondents. In light of the Principal Director's statement on oath regarding the ongoing investigation, the court concluded that no further orders were necessary in the writ petitions, clarifying that there is no obligation on the official respondents to act solely based on the petitioner's request.