YOGINDER KUMAR SUD vs. PRESIDENT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the writ petition was a gross abuse of the process of law and dismissed it. The Court found that the petition lacked material particulars regarding the alleged illegal demands and harassment. It stated that the petitioner had no right to claim a writ of mandamus to restrain statutory authorities from performing their functions. The Court also observed that the petition appeared to be an attempt to settle scores, possibly arising from the petitioner's conduct as a representative of assessees. The Court did not find any merit in the petitioner's claims of harassment or prejudice that would warrant the issuance of a writ.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Yoginder Kumar Sud, a Chartered Accountant, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to restrain the Judicial and Accountant Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar, from discharging their functions. He also sought a direction to the President of ITAT to decide his representation dated March 18, 2013, in a time-bound manner. The petitioner alleged harassment by the ITAT members at Amritsar, claiming he could not meet their "expectations and illegal demands." He further contended that the Tribunal was delaying his cases, passing unreasoned orders, or ignoring him. The petitioner also mentioned that one member was transferred out of Amritsar after his complaint but was later reposted. He claimed prejudice due to a complaint made against a member.
What were the issues?
1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from discharging their statutory functions, and to direct the President of ITAT to decide a representation in a time-bound manner? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions (Petitioner): The petitioner argued that he was facing harassment from the ITAT members at Amritsar due to his inability to meet their alleged illegal demands. He also claimed that the Tribunal was causing undue delays, passing unreasoned orders, and showing prejudice against him, particularly after he had made a complaint against a member. He sought intervention to prevent further alleged misconduct and to ensure timely resolution of his matters. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondents (President ITAT and ITAT members).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**** Date of Decision:08.05.2013 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral) The petitioner has claimed a writ of mandamus for restraining respondents No.2 and 3, i.e., Judicial and Accountant Members of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar from discharging their functions and directing the President of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide represention dated 18.3.2013 in the time bound manner. The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and has been appearing before the Income Tax Authorities as well as before various Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is facing lot of harrassment at the hands of respondents No.2 and 3, who are Judicial and Accountant Member of the Tribunal at Amritsar as the petitioner has not been able to meet their expectations and illegal demands. It is also pointed out that the Tribunal is delaying the matters of the petitioner or passing unreasoned orders or by totalling ignoring him. It -2- is also pointed out that respondent No.2 was transferred out of Amritsar on a representation submitted by the petitioner but after one year respondent No.2 has been again posted as a Judicial Member of Amritsar Tribunal. The petitioner claims that the Members are totally prejudice against the petitioner on account of his having made a complaint against respondent No.2 to the President. It appears that the present writ petition is to settle the scores which the petitioner might have raised during the course of his conduct as representative of the assessees. The petitioner has asserted that he is not able to meet the expectations and illegal demands raised by the Members but there is no details as to when and how the demands were raised. Not only the writ petition is bereft of any material particulars but also the petitioner has no right to claim mandamus for restraining an authority constituted under the Act from discharging the functions entrusted to it by the Statute. The present writ petition is gross abuse of process of law and, therefore, it is dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA )
JUDGE May 08, 2013
( RITU BAHRI ) renu
JUDGE
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
