RAM PRABHAKAR vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17718/2025HC DelhiDLHC01092496202510 March 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present petition was essentially a modus operandi to bring a partnership dispute before the Court and make it a battleground for an inter-se dispute. The Court noted that the petitioner had other legal remedies available, including those under the Partnership Act, 1932, and the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court concluded that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be allowed to be used for the reliefs claimed and for the purported infringement of rights as pleaded. Therefore, the petition was dismissed without any order as to costs. The pending application was also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Prabhakar, a sleeping partner in M/s Sham Enterprises, filed a tax evasion petition before the Income Tax Department alleging illegalities and tax evasion by other partners. He approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to conduct a time-bound inquiry into his petition. He also sought directions to ensure he is not subjected to adverse consequences for actions of other partners and is afforded statutory rights and opportunities to safeguard against personal liability. The petitioner's grievance was that despite filing the petition, no proceedings were initiated, nor was he informed of its status. The respondents were the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and other authorities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to direct the Income Tax Department to conduct a time-bound inquiry into a tax evasion petition filed by a partner against a firm, and to ensure the petitioner is not subjected to adverse consequences for the actions of other partners. Assessee's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he had filed a tax evasion petition highlighting illegalities and tax evasion by partners of M/s Sham Enterprises. He contended that the respondent authorities had neither taken up proceedings nor informed him of the petition's status, and prayed for directions to take action. He also sought protection from adverse consequences and assurance of statutory rights. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the Court's observation suggests that the petition was viewed as an attempt to bring a partnership dispute before the Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17718/2025 CM APPL. 666/2026 RAM PRABHAKAR

.....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC, Mr. V.K. Saksena and Ms. Hemlata Rawat, JSCs CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

10.03.2026 1. The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked for the following prayers:- “i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction thereby Directing the Respondent authorities to conduct a time bound enquiry into the tax evasion petition within a fixed time frame in accordance with the law. ii) Direct the Respondent Authorities to ensure that the petitioner is not subjected to any adverse civil, criminal or tax consequences on actions committed by other partners during the course of the tax evasion petition. iii) Direct the respondent Authority to ensure that petitioner is afforded all statutory rights, notices and opportunities to safeguard against any personal liability if any.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 13:53:24

2.

The petitioner present in person submitted that he has filed a tax evasion petition before the Income Tax Department highlighting certain illegalities and evasion of tax committed by the partners of the firm known as M/s Sham Enterprises-respondent No.4 in which he is a sleeping partner. 3. The petitioner has raised a grievance that in spite of such petition having been filed, neither the respondents have taken up any proceedings nor are they informing the petitioner about its stage / status. He prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to take action in relation to the affairs of the firm. 4. According to us, the present petition is nothing but a modus-operandi to bring the partnership dispute before this Court and make this Court a battleground for an otherwise inter-se dispute, for which the petitioner has various other legal courses available to him including the remedies under the Partnership Act, 1932 and Right to Information Act, 2005. 5. For the relief as claimed and for purported infringement of the rights as pleaded in the present petition, the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be used. 6. The petition is therefore dismissed, however without any order as to cost. 7. The pending application stands disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J MARCH 10, 2026/cd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 13:53:24

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →