Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Judicial restraint in mandamus petitions limits writ intervention where alleged tax evasion rests on disputed allegations.
Writ of mandamus was invoked under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 261 and 265 to seek enforcement of statutory duties concerning alleged tax evasion. The allegations relied on an FIR, sworn testimony before a Family Court, affidavits concerning declared assets, and purported unaccounted cash transactions. The central legal issue concerns the scope of writ jurisdiction and judicial restraint where allegations remain disputed, alongside constitutional claims relating to equality, free expression, personal liberty, inter-State recognition, and taxation only by authority of law.
Writ of mandamus - Judicial restraint in disputed allegations - Exercise of writ jurisdiction - writ petition invoking Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 261 and 265 of the Constitution seeking enforcement of statutory duties against alleged tax evasion based on judicially admitted unaccounted cash transactions of approximately ₹1.80 crores, supported by an FIR, sworn testimony before the Family Court, and affidavits reflecting disproportionate declared assets HELD THAT:- We find no good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court.[2026 (4) TMI 1196 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.