Case Law Details
Rahul Gupta Vs Income Tax Department (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a series of directions against the Income Tax Department for investigation into alleged tax evasion, concealment of income and wealth, and abetment by certain individuals and professionals. The petitioner, appearing in person, sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Department to conduct a time-bound investigation, complete it within six months, initiate consequential actions including assessments, reassessments, recovery of taxes, penalties, and prosecution, and share the findings with other investigating agencies for action under various laws. The petitioner also requested directions for consideration of his claim for an informant reward under the applicable CBDT schemes, submission of a compliance report before the Court after completion of the investigation, and payment of compensation for alleged harassment, mental agony, and prolonged inaction by the authorities. During the proceedings, the petitioner informed the Court that a criminal case under Sections 498 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered against him on the complaint of his wife and that, in an earlier criminal petition, the High Court had quashed the FIR against his parents while permitting prosecution against him to continue. The Income Tax Department submitted that the petitioner had already filed a Tax Evasion Petition, which was rejected on 22.08.2025 as being barred by limitation in view of the amendments made to the Income Tax Act, 1961. After hearing the parties and examining the documents, the High Court held that, considering the facts of the case and the nature of the relief sought, no writ of mandamus could be issued at that stage. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court, however, clarified that the petitioner remained at liberty to raise all available defences by filing an appropriate application before the competent trial court where the criminal proceedings against him were pending. No further directions were issued regarding the requested investigation, enforcement measures, informant reward, or compensation.
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to the Income Tax Department to investigate alleged tax evasion, take enforcement action, consider an informant reward claim, and submit a compliance report. The Department informed the Court that the petitioner’s Tax Evasion Petition had already been rejected as time-barred under the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that no writ of mandamus could be issued in the facts of the case and dismissed the petition. It, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to raise his defences before the trial court in the pending criminal proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
The petitioner in person has filed this petition praying for the following reliefs:-
“10.1 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, compelling Respondent No. 1 (Income Tax Department) to forthwith initiate and conduct a thorough, effective, and time-bound investigation into the detailed allegations of tax evasion, concealment of income/wealth, and abetment thereof against Rajendra Mittal, Sulochana Mittal, Mukesh Kumar Mittal, Laxmi Mittal (the Alleged Evaders), and Ajay Agrawal, CA Vishal Agrawal (the Alleged Abettors). This investigation should be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the erstwhile Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for the relevant period), and all other applicable laws, giving due consideration to the Tax Evasion Petition (Annexure P-3), supplementary information (Annexure P-4), the unequivocal admissions (Annexures P-1 and P-2), and all other relevant materials, including those detailed in the Grounds of this petition; 10.2 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent No. 1 to complete the aforesaid investigation within a stipulated period, preferably not exceeding six months from the date of this Hon’ble Court’s order, or such other period as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;
10.3 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent No. 1 to take all necessary and consequential enforcement actions based on the findings of the investigation. Such actions should include, but not be limited to, making assessments/reassessments of income and wealth, raising demands for unpaid taxes with applicable interest, imposing penalties under Chapter XXI of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (and corresponding provisions of the erstwhile Wealth Tax Act, 1957, where applicable), and initiating prosecution proceedings under Chapter XXII of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (and corresponding provisions of the erstwhile Wealth Tax Act, 1957, where applicable) against all persons found to be liable;
10.4 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, compelling Respondent No. 1 to share all findings, outcomes, and relevant evidence gathered during its investigation pertaining to potential criminal offences (including but not limited to fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust, money laundering, benami transactions, and offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860) with Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (Police authorities of Chhattisgarh), the concerned District Magistrate, Ambikapur and Raipur, and other relevant law enforcement and investigative agencies (such as the Enforcement Directorate, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, etc.) for appropriate, independent investigation and action under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, or any other applicable laws;
10.5 Issue appropriate directives to Respondent No. 1 to fairly, transparently, and expeditiously consider and process the Petitioner’s claim for reward for furnishing credible information leading to the detection of tax evasion and recovery of taxes, in accordance with the extant informant reward schemes and guidelines issued by the CBDT/Ministry of Finance under the Income Tax Act, 1961, upon the successful detection/assessment/recovery of taxes based on the information provided by the Petitioner;
10.6 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, compelling Respondent No. 1 to furnish a comprehensive compliance report before this Hon’ble Court within 30 days of the completion of the stipulated investigation period (as per prayer 10.2 above). This report should detail the outcome of the investigation, particulars of tax demands raised/recovered, penalties imposed, prosecution initiated (with case numbers, if any), information shared with other agencies, and the status of the Petitioner’s informant reward claim;
10.7 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 1, to pay adequate compensation to the Petitioner for the harassment, mental agony, and expenses incurred due to their unreasonable and prolonged inaction and dereliction of statutory duties, which has compelled the Petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court for the enforcement of law in the public interest;
2. The petitioner in person would inform that a complaint has been registered against him for offences under Section 498 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code by his wife. He would further submit that he has preferred a petition bearing Cr.M.P No. 1111 of 2023 wherein he has challenged the charges levelled against him and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2024 has partially allowed the said petition by quashing FIR registered against petitioner’s parents but continued the prosecution against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that the petitioner has filed Tax Evasion Petition before the Income Tax Department and the same has rightly been rejected on 22.08.2025 on the count that it is barred by limitation as per amendment made in the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
5. Considering the facts of the case and relief sought by the petitioner, I am of the view that no Writ of Mandamus can be issued to the respondents at this stage, accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.
6. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take all his defense by filing an appropriate application before the concerned trial Court where criminal case is pending against him.
Author Bio
