Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Santosh Agrawal, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition alleging large-scale GST and Income Tax evasion by Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 (R.K. Structure Pvt. Ltd., R.K. Ispat Trading Company, and R.K. Ispat Udyog). The petitioner claimed to have received information about these alleged evasions and submitted a complaint to the GST Department in November 2022. The GST Department initiated an enquiry, issued summons to various individuals and entities, and the petitioner subsequently provided documentary evidence, including weighbridge slips, affidavits, and transaction records, suggesting significant undeclared transactions and tax liabilities. The petitioner sought directions for a fair, impartial, and time-bound investigation by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (Director General of GST Intelligence, State of Chhattisgarh, and Income Tax Department), completion of proceedings, examination of documents, and recovery of dues.

Held

The Court held that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it in limine. The Court found that the core of the controversy involved the determination of alleged tax liabilities arising from commercial transactions, which falls exclusively within the statutory domain of the competent authorities under the GST laws and the Income Tax Act. The Court reasoned that a writ of mandamus could not be issued to direct the authorities to conduct an investigation in a particular manner, supervise the enquiry, examine specific documents, or recover alleged tax liabilities based on the petitioner's assumptions and estimates. The Court emphasized that statutory authorities are empowered to initiate and conduct such enquiries in accordance with law, and the petitioner has no enforceable right to monitor or participate in those proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any mala fides, arbitrariness, or deliberate failure on the part of the respondent authorities to discharge their statutory duties. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had previously approached the High Court with a substantially similar petition, which was dismissed for lack of locus standi, and that merely styling the present petition as a PIL did not overcome this defect. The Court concluded that the petition did not disclose any genuine element of public interest and was a misconceived attempt to invoke PIL jurisdiction for matters with existing statutory mechanisms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to conduct a fair, impartial, independent, and time-bound investigation into alleged GST and Income Tax evasion by Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, considering the documentary evidence provided by the petitioner? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the extensive documentary evidence, including weighbridge slips, affidavits, and transaction records, demonstrated substantial tax evasion, warranting judicial intervention to ensure a thorough investigation and recovery of public revenue. They argued that the authorities needed to examine all relevant business transactions and documents. - Revenue/State's argument: The respondents argued that the determination of tax evasion and liability falls exclusively within the statutory domain of the competent authorities under the GST laws and the Income Tax Act. They contended that the petitioner had no enforceable right to monitor or direct the investigation and that statutory confidentiality governed such proceedings. They also pointed out that the petitioner had previously filed a similar petition lacking locus standi.