NARINDER KHANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , party in person has filed this petition against 14 respondents and after amendment the number has increased to 19. It is prayed by him that appropriate writ of mandamus be issued to Central Board of Direct Taxes and Commissioner to collect income -tax in respect of taxable perquisites like road tax, free tyre tube, batteries, insurance premium, interest free car loan of Rs. 4 lakhs, fixed conveyance allowance of Rs. 2,000 per month as well as reimbursement of 125. Its of petrol per month from 5,000 class -I officers, 29,000 class II officers and 40,000 class III employees of government owned insurance companies for the block period of 10 years prior to search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act conducted on 29 -11 -2000.

(2.) SOME raids might have been conducted by the Income Tax Department and it might have found out that benefits have been taken in contravention of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, petitioner has not pointed out as to how he is entitled for issuance of writ of mandamus against recovery from 5,000 class I officers 29,000 class II officers and 40,000 class III employees of government owned insurance companies. If the Central Board of Direct Taxes or the Commissioner has taken action in accordance with law, then it is for them to make recovery in accordance with law. It is otherwise also a very vague petition. thereforee, it is not possible to entertain this matter pertaining to the Income Tax Act which is a self contained code and provides the machinery for dealing with such situations.

(3.) THE petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus to IRDA, CAG, Director Vigilance, Ministry of Finance, C.V.C. and Financial Advisors of the government owned Insurance Companies to fix responsibility and initiate appropriate recovery and disciplinary proceedings in case of theft of stamp duty as allegedly proved under section 105C of the IRD Act, 1999, in case of temporary embezzlement of Rs. 8 crores of Companies Fund and recovery of auditor's fees from the salaries of in charges who were all responsible for such malpractices. Petitioner has not pointed out any case of theft of stamp duty. From the submission it appears that he is trying to canvass that stamps of proper fees were not affixed and thereby government has suffered. Under the Stamps Act, there are officers duly appointed to initiate action in accordance with law. On such general statement or a general prayer, court cannot take cognizance. The other allegation in this regard also are too vague and general to warrant any interference by us. Petitioner has also prayed for writ of mandamus to Financial Advisers of the insurance companies and C.V.C. for recovery of illegal payment of transfer grant of Rs. 15,000 paid to Sh. K.K. Khanna and others who had not shifted their residence from Delhi and Meerut to Ghaziabad on their transfer to Ghaziabad. This cause of action arises within the territorial limits in Ghaziabad. That apart there is no report placed on record alleged to have been made by C.V.C. In absence of C.V.C. report, the court cannot examine this aspect.