2020 (1) TMI 970 - HC - Income Tax

Dismissed: Petition for Tax Return Extension in Bihar 2016-17

The court found the petition seeking an extension for filing online Income Tax returns in Bihar for the financial year 2016-17 to be not maintainable due ... Extension of time for furnishing online Income Tax return in the Bihar which was expired on 31-03-2018 for the Financial Year-2016-17 - private cause OR public cause - HELD THAT:- The petition in its present form is not maintainable, apart from it being deficient of particular materials. However, Tax Payers of Bihar faces ‘unnatural inconvenience’ in not filing income-tax returns within the stipulated period remains unexplained. The petition appears to be espousing private cause instead of public cause. Issues:1. Maintainability of the petition seeking extension for filing online Income Tax return in Bihar.2. Public interest litigation vs. private cause.3. Applicability of procedural technicalities in public interest litigation.4. Principles governing the issuance of a writ of mandamus.Issue 1: Maintainability of the petition seeking extension for filing online Income Tax return in BiharThe petition sought a direction to extend the deadline for filing online Income Tax returns in Bihar for the financial year 2016-17. However, the court found the petition to be not maintainable due to its deficiency in particular materials. The court noted that while taxpayers in Bihar faced inconvenience in meeting the deadline, the petition seemed to advocate a private cause rather than a public one. Citing the case of D. N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, the court highlighted the importance of maintaining a distinction between private and public causes in such petitions.Issue 2: Public interest litigation vs. private causeThe court referred to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D. N. Jeevaraj case regarding public interest litigation. It was emphasized that procedural technicalities should take a back seat in public interest litigation. The court acknowledged the significance of public interest litigation in matters concerning good governance and social safety. However, it was also noted that public interest litigation should not be entertained in cases that do not strictly fall under that category and where other remedies are available for the petitioner.Issue 3: Applicability of procedural technicalities in public interest litigationThe court discussed the importance of procedural laws in public interest litigation while also emphasizing the need for a more liberal approach by the courts in matters concerning good governance. It was highlighted that while procedural laws do apply to public interest litigations, every technicality in procedural law should not be used as a defense when dealing with issues of grave public importance. The court stressed the availability of other remedies for public-spirited litigants and encouraged them to explore such alternatives.Issue 4: Principles governing the issuance of a writ of mandamusThe court delved into the principles governing the issuance of a writ of mandamus, citing various legal precedents. It explained that a writ of mandamus is a command issued to ensure the performance of a public legal duty by a person who has failed to do so. The court highlighted the extensive remedial nature of a writ of mandamus and the need to prevent disorder from a failure of justice. The court also outlined the salutary principle that a writ of mandamus should not be issued in the absence of a failure to perform a mandatory duty and emphasized the importance of a distinct demand and refusal before seeking such a writ.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition seeking an extension for filing online Income Tax returns in Bihar, citing its deficiency in maintainability and the advocacy of a private cause rather than a public one. The judgment underscored the importance of distinguishing between public interest litigation and private causes, while also highlighting the principles governing the issuance of a writ of mandamus in matters of public importance.