CAs’ Handbook on Writs

Committee on Commercial Laws, Economic Advisory & NPO Cooperative

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
(Set up by an Act of Parliament)
New Delhi
© THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior
permission, in writing, from the publisher.

Basic draft of this publication was prepared by CA. Suhas Premsukh Bora

Edition : February, 2025

Committee/Department : Committee on Commercial Laws, Economic

Advisory & NPO Cooperative

E – mail : admin.cclnpo@icai.in

Website : www.icai.org

ISBN : 978-93-48313-68-3

Published by : The Publication & CDS Directorate on behalf of

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
ICAI Bhawan, Post Box No. 7100, Indraprastha
Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 (India)

Printed by : To be decided
 Foreword
The role of writs in the Indian legal framework is of paramount significance,
serving as a powerful constitutional remedy to safeguard individual rights and
uphold the rule of law. Chartered Accountants (CAs), as key stakeholders in
financial and corporate governance, often find themselves navigating
complex legal landscapes where an understanding of writ jurisdiction can be
an invaluable asset.

The CAs' Handbook on Writs provides an in-depth analysis of writs under

Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, covering their historical
evolution, key principles, and applications in taxation, regulatory compliance,
and public interest litigation. It examines the five principal writs and their role
in judicial review, administrative law, and fundamental rights enforcement,
with a focus on emerging areas like environmental and digital rights, making
it an essential guide for professionals in legal and financial governance.

I extend my heartfelt appreciation to CA. Chandrashekhar Vasant Chitale;

CA. Prakash Sharma, Vice-Chairman and other members for their dedication
and expertise in compiling this invaluable resource.

I hope this handbook serves as a valuable resource, providing meaningful

insights and guidance to its readers. I encourage all readers to make the
most of this resource and leverage the insights provided within.

February 11, 2025 CA. Ranjeet Kumar Agarwal

Delhi President, ICAI,
 Preface
Beyond financial expertise, Chartered Accountants (CAs) are instrumental in
legal compliance and advocacy. Their role in drafting writs is crucial in
addressing tax disputes, regulatory challenges, and financial litigations. A
strong grasp of writ drafting empowers CAs to contribute effectively to legal
proceedings, reinforcing their position as key advisors in the financial-legal
domain.
Writ petitions serve as a vital constitutional remedy, enabling individuals and
organizations to seek judicial redress for fundamental rights’ violations and
administrative lapses. For Chartered Accountants, proficiency in writ drafting
adds significant value, particularly in financial disputes, tax matters, and
compliance-related cases where their expertise is essential.
This handbook provides CAs with a structured approach to drafting writs,
emphasizing clarity, precision, and adherence to legal procedures. By
mastering this skill, CAs can enhance their role as trusted advisors, bridging
financial expertise with legal advocacy while reinforcing their commitment to
justice and the rule of law.
I extend my sincere gratitude to CA. Ranjeet Kumar Agarwal, President,
ICAI, and CA. Charanjot Singh Nanda, Vice-President, ICAI, for their
unwavering support in driving this initiative forward. I also appreciate the
valuable insights and contributions of CA. Suhas P. Bora.
Additionally, I acknowledge the dedicated efforts of CA. Prakash Sharma,
Vice-Chairman, and the esteemed members of the Committee for their
commitment to these initiatives throughout the year. My heartfelt appreciation
also goes to the Committee’s Secretariat for their diligence and perseverance
in bringing this publication to fruition.
I hope this handbook serves as a valuable resource, providing meaningful
insights and guidance to its readers.

January 27, 2025 CA. Chandrashekhar Vasant Chitale

Delhi Chairman, Committee on Commercial Law,
Economic Advisory, and NPO Cooperative
 Index
Chapter 1 : Introduction to Writs .............................................................. 1
Chapter 2 : Kinds of Writs ........................................................................ 4
Chapter 3 : Comparative Analysis of Writ Jurisdiction ........................... 9
o Writ Jurisdiction in India vs. UK and USA
o Influence of English Common Law
o Expansion of Writs in Indian Context
o Impact of Writs on Environmental and Human Rights Law
o Case Examples:
 Vineet Narain v. Union of India (CBI Investigation)
 PIL and Writ Jurisdiction Expansion
Chapter 4 : Historical Background ......................................................... 11
o Origin of Prerogative Writs in England
o Procedural Disadvantages and Reforms
o Evolution of Judicial Review
o Impact of English Law on Indian Judicial System
o Important References:
 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
 Lord Denning’s Explanation on Judicial Review
Chapter 5 : Tax disputes and Courts jurisdiction .................................. 13
o Statutory Procedure in Income Tax
o Role of Assessing Authority
o Appellate Procedures and Courts
o Key Cases:
 Misty Meadows (P.) Ltd. v. UOI
 H. P. Diamonds India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
 Meerut Development Authority v. Pr. CIT
o Intersection with Writ Jurisdiction
Chapter 6 : Intersection of Writs and PIL ............................................... 16
o Role of PIL in Expanding Writ Jurisdiction
o Impact of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
o Key Environmental Cases:
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case)
o Judicial Activism and Public Governance
Chapter 7 : Writs and Fundamental Rights ............................................ 19
o Protection of Fundamental Rights under Articles 32 and 226
o Expansion of Article 21 (Right to Life)
o Landmark Cases:
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
o Role of Writs in Enforcing Socio-Economic Rights
Chapter 8 : Writs and the Doctrine of Natural Justice: .......................... 21
o Principles of Natural Justice: Audi Alteram Partem, Nemo Judex in
Causa Sua
o Application in Administrative Law
o Influential Cases:
 Ridge v. Baldwin
 A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India
o Challenges in Enforcing Natural Justice through Writs
Chapter 9 : Principles of Writs in Administrative Actions ..................... 23
o Controlling Administrative Discretion
o Principles of Reasonableness, Fairness, and Proportionality
o Key Judicial Decisions:
 State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
 Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India
o Impact of Technology on Writ Jurisdiction
Chapter 10 : Writs and Environmental Protection .................................. 26
o Environmental Jurisprudence in India
o Role of Writs in Enforcing Environmental Laws
o Landmark Cases:
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case)
 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
o Sustainable Development and Judicial Intervention
Chapter 11 : Future of Writ Jurisdiction in India .................................... 28
o Emerging Trends: Digital Rights, Environmental Sustainability
o Balancing Judicial Activism with Restraint
o Challenges and Opportunities in Writ Jurisdiction
o Role of Technology and Cyber Jurisdiction in Future Writs
Chapter 12 : Case Law on Jurisdiction and Assessment in
Tax Matters .................................................................................... 35
 Chapter 1
Introduction to Writs
A writ is a formal legal instrument issued by a court that commands a party to
perform or refrain from performing a specific act. Rooted in the ancient
practices of English common law, writs originally functioned as royal
commands, serving as tools of administrative control. Over centuries, these
writs have evolved into fundamental judicial remedies used to uphold the rule
of law and protect individual rights against unlawful actions by authorities.
Under the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts are
vested with the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental
rights and other legal rights, as provided under Articles 32 and 226
respectively. The writs serve as robust mechanisms for judicial intervention,
providing immediate relief to individuals whose rights have been infringed.
The five primary writs are Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition,
Certiorari, and Quo Warranto.
These writs are indispensable tools in the exercise of judicial review, a
process through which courts oversee the actions of the executive and
legislative branches. By empowering citizens to challenge illegal or
unconstitutional actions, writs ensure that governance adheres to the rule of
law, serving as a check on the exercise of power by public authorities and
preventing arbitrary or unlawful actions.
Uses of WRITS
Writs are essential tools in legal systems for ensuring that the rule of law is
maintained. Their uses extend to various contexts, including the protection of
individual rights, governance, judicial review, and more. Below is a detailed
exploration of the uses of writs:
1. Protection of Fundamental Rights
• Habeas Corpus is often used to safeguard personal liberty and
prevent unlawful detention or imprisonment.
• It ensures that no individual is deprived of freedom without lawful
justification.
• Writs are instrumental in cases where constitutional or human rights
are at risk.
CAs Handbook on Writs

2. Ensuring Compliance by Authorities

• Writs such as Mandamus compel public officials, government bodies,
or organizations to perform their statutory duties.
• They are used when an authority refuses or fails to act as required by
law.
• Example: Ordering a municipal authority to provide essential services
like water or sanitation.
3. Correction of Judicial Errors
• Higher courts use writs like Certiorari to review and correct errors
made by lower courts or tribunals.
• This ensures that decisions are lawful, fair, and within the jurisdiction
of the lower court.
• Example: Overturning an invalid ruling made by a trial court.
4. Preventing Abuse of Power
• Writs like Prohibition are used to stop courts, tribunals, or authorities
from exceeding their jurisdiction or acting unlawfully.
• Example: Preventing a tax authority from conducting an illegal
assessment.
5. Challenging Authority and Accountability
• The writ of Quo Warranto is used to challenge individuals who claim
to hold a public office without proper legal authority.
• Example: A citizen questioning the appointment of an official who does
not meet the eligibility criteria.
6. Administrative and Governance Oversight
• Courts use writs to ensure that administrative bodies and government
agencies function within the legal framework.
• Writs ensure transparency and accountability in public administration.
• Example: Mandating fair distribution of resources or services under a
government scheme.

2
 Introduction to Writs

7. Safeguarding Democracy
• Writs are powerful tools to check abuse of power by any branch of
government—executive, legislature, or judiciary.
• They protect democratic principles by ensuring that laws and
regulations are followed.
8. Enforcing Court Orders
• Writs act as mechanisms to ensure that individuals or entities comply
with court decisions.
• Example: Enforcing payment of fines, compliance with injunctions, or
release of property.
9. Providing Remedies in Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
• In cases where public rights are violated or the public interest is at
stake, writs are used as remedies.
• Example: Directing governments to act on environmental issues,
human rights violations, or public safety concerns.
10. Supporting Justice in Emergency Situations
• Writs provide quick remedies when there is an urgent need for judicial
intervention.
• Example: Preventing illegal demolition of homes or halting the
execution of an invalid law.
11. Ensuring Fair Elections
• Writs like Quo Warranto and Mandamus can be used to ensure that
elections are conducted fairly and according to the law.
• Example: Ordering a recount of votes or disqualifying an ineligible
candidate.
12. Promoting Rule of Law
• By compelling compliance with legal duties and preventing unlawful
actions, writs reinforce the principle that no one is above the law.
• They are tools to ensure equity, justice, and adherence to
constitutional provisions.

3
 Chapter 2
Kinds of Writs
1. Habeas Corpus
The writ of Habeas Corpus is a critical legal remedy for protecting individual
liberty against unlawful and arbitrary detention. Derived from the Latin term
meaning "you shall have the body," this writ serves as an immediate judicial
inquiry into the legality of a person's detention. It requires the detaining
authority to bring the detained individual before the court, ensuring that the
detention is lawful, and that due process has been followed. Habeas Corpus
stands as a cornerstone of personal freedom and is often invoked in cases of
preventive detention, custodial violence, and other instances where the
liberty of a person is in jeopardy. A notable case involving this writ is A.K.
Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), where the Supreme Court upheld the
detention of a communist leader under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Another significant case is ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976),
known as the Habeas Corpus case, where the Supreme Court controversially
held that during an Emergency, the right to habeas corpus could be
suspended. This decision was later criticized and partially overturned by the
44th Amendment, which reaffirmed the importance of the writ in protecting
individual rights even during exceptional circumstances. The writ of habeas
corpus continues to play a vital role in safeguarding individual freedom,
particularly in situations involving unlawful arrests, detentions under
preventive detention laws, and instances of police custody without proper
legal authority. It acts as a bulwark against state overreach, ensuring that
personal liberty is not curtailed without the due process of law.

2. Mandamus
The writ of Mandamus, meaning "we command" in Latin, is a powerful judicial
remedy aimed at compelling a public authority to perform a duty that it is
legally obligated to execute. This writ is invoked when a public official, body,
or government entity fails to act on a matter that falls within its jurisdiction
and where there is no other adequate remedy available. Mandamus is
instrumental in ensuring that public duties are carried out in accordance with
the law, particularly in areas where inaction or refusal by the authorities
could result in the denial of justice or the infringement of rights. A key case
 Kinds of Writs

that illustrates the use of this writ is Gujarat State Financial Corporation v.
Lotus Hotels (1983), where the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus
compelling the Gujarat State Financial Corporation to fulfil its contractual
obligations, demonstrating the court's willingness to enforce public duties in
the realm of statutory contracts. Another important case is Bihar Public
Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012), where the
Court clarified that the writ of mandamus is not available to enforce a duty of
a discretionary nature, emphasizing that mandamus applies only when a
clear legal duty is established. The writ of mandamus cannot be issued
against private individuals or entities and is limited to public authorities.
Furthermore, it cannot compel actions that fall within the discretionary
powers of an authority and is unavailable where there is an alternative
remedy, such as an appeal, unless that remedy is deemed inadequate or
ineffective.

3. Prohibition
The writ of Prohibition is a preventive remedy issued by a superior court to
restrain a lower court or tribunal from continuing proceedings that fall outside
its jurisdiction or violate the principles of natural justice. This writ serves as a
vital tool in maintaining the jurisdictional boundaries of judicial and quasi-
judicial bodies. By halting proceedings that are ultra vires, or beyond the
legal authority of the adjudicating body, prohibition ensures that the rule of
law is upheld and that judicial actions are conducted within the framework
established by law. A significant case that highlights the application of this
writ is East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1962),
where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the writ of
prohibition in preventing lower courts from exercising jurisdiction in matters
beyond their competence. Another relevant case is Hari Vishnu Kamath v.
Ahmad Ishaque (1955), where the Court established that the writ of
prohibition could be used not only to prevent an excess of jurisdiction but
also to address instances of abuse of jurisdiction, thereby broadening the
scope of the writ.
Application in Modern Judiciary: The writ of prohibition is primarily utilized
as a preventive measure in the modern judicial system. It is particularly
relevant in cases where lower courts or tribunals are perceived to be acting
beyond their legal mandate or where there is a significant risk of miscarriage
of justice due to procedural irregularities.

5
CAs Handbook on Writs

4. Certiorari
Certiorari is a judicial order directing a lower court or tribunal to transmit the
record of a proceeding for review by a higher court. This writ is typically
issued to quash the order or decision of a lower court that has acted without
jurisdiction, more than its jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of
natural justice. Certiorari plays a crucial role in correcting errors of law that
are apparent on the face of the record and serves as an essential
mechanism for ensuring that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies operate within
the confines of their legal authority. In the case of Gullapalli Nageswara
Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1959), the
Supreme Court quashed the orders of the Andhra Pradesh government,
holding that the principles of natural justice were violated, thus justifying the
issuance of a writ of certiorari. This case illustrates the application of the writ
in correcting procedural irregularities. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander
Rai (2003), the Court expanded the scope of certiorari, stating that the writ
could be issued not only to quash orders that are ultra vires but also to
correct errors of jurisdiction, thereby reinforcing the supervisory role of higher
courts. Certiorari differs fundamentally from an appeal in that it is a
supervisory writ rather than a continuation of the original proceedings. While
an appeal involves a re-evaluation of the merits of a case, certiorari focuses
on jurisdictional errors and procedural violations, ensuring that lower courts
do not overstep their bounds or contravene established legal principles.
When is a writ of Certiorari issued?
It is issued to quasi-judicial or subordinate courts if they act in the following
ways:
1. Either without any jurisdiction or in excess.
2. In violation of the principles of Natural Justice.
3. In opposition to the procedure established by law.
4. If there is an error in judgement on the face of it.
It is pertinent to note that the Writ of certiorari is issued after the passing of
the order.

6
 Kinds of Writs

Important Judgements on writ of Certiorari

In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., the Supreme Court has
explained the meaning, ambit and scope of the writ of Certiorari. Also, in this
it was explained that Certiorari is always available against inferior courts and
not against equal or higher court, i.e., it cannot be issued by a High Court
against any High Court or benches much less to the Supreme Court and any
of its benches. Then in the case of T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa & Anr. [13],
it was held by the constitution bench that certiorari maybe and is generally
granted when a court has acted (i) without jurisdiction or (ii) more than its
jurisdiction. In Hari Bishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque [14], the Supreme
Court said that “the court issuing certiorari to quash, however, could not
substitute its own decision on the merits or give directions to be complied
with by the court or tribunal. Its work was destructive, it simply wiped out the
order passed without jurisdiction and left the matter there.” In Naresh S.
Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra [15], it was said that High Court’s judicial
orders are open to being corrected by certiorari and that writ is not available
against the High Court.
Circumstances when the writ of Certiorari cannot be issued
The writ of certiorari cannot be issued against:
1. An individual
2. A company
3. Any private authority
4. An association
5. To amend an Act or Ordinance
6. An aggrieved party who has an alternative remedy
In the case of General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project,
Orissa and Others v. Giridhari Sahu and Ors. (2019), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court laid down the factors determining the validity of the writ of certiorari.
In the case of Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai,
(1998) 8 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the alternative remedy
has been consistently held not to operate as a bar in at least three
contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition has been filed for the
enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or (ii) where there has been a

7
CAs Handbook on Writs

violation of the principle of natural justice or (iii) where the order or

proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged.
The Court also held in Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, (2003) 2
SCC 107 that in an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative
remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three
contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice;
or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the
vires of an Act is challenged.

5. Quo Warranto
Quo Warranto is a judicial order requiring a person to show by what warrant
or authority they hold a public office or exercise a public duty. The term "Quo
Warranto" translates to "by what authority," reflecting its role as a tool to
challenge the legality of an individual's claim to a public office. This writ is
essential in ensuring that only those legally entitled to hold public office can
do so, thereby maintaining the integrity and legality of public administration.
In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (1964), a landmark case in the
application of Quo Warranto, the Supreme Court held that the writ could be
issued even if the appointment in question did not violate a specific statute
but was nonetheless irregular or illegal. The court reinforced the principle
that public offices must be held only by those who meet all legal
qualifications. Similarly, in N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose (2009), the
Supreme Court issued a writ of Quo Warranto against the appointment of a
person as a State Information Commissioner, highlighting that the appointee
did not possess the requisite qualifications as per the statute. This case
underscores the importance of adhering to statutory qualifications in public
appointments. The writ of Quo Warranto remains a powerful judicial tool in
modern governance, particularly in cases involving controversial
appointments to public offices. With increasing instances of appointments
being challenged on grounds of political favouritism or lack of qualifications,
Quo Warranto plays a critical role in safeguarding the legality and
transparency of public appointments. However, Quo Warranto cannot be
issued against a private individual or in cases where the office in question is
not a public one. Additionally, the writ is not applicable where the challenge
is based purely on moral or ethical grounds without a clear legal violation.

8
 Chapter 3
Comparative Analysis of Writ
Jurisdiction
The Indian Constitution's provisions for writs draw heavily from English
common law, yet they have been adapted to the Indian context to address
the specific needs of a diverse and complex society. Unlike in the UK, where
the prerogative writs have been largely replaced by statutory remedies, the
writ jurisdiction in India remains a vital part of judicial oversight. In the United
States, writs such as habeas corpus also play a significant role, particularly
in federal courts. However, the scope and application of writs in the U.S. are
influenced by the principles of federalism, where both state and federal
courts have varying degrees of writ jurisdiction. In comparison to jurisdictions
like the UK and the U.S., Indian courts have a broader and more accessible
writ jurisdiction, particularly under Article 226 of the Constitution, which
allows individuals to seek remedies for the violation of not just fundamental
rights but also other legal rights. Indian courts have progressively expanded
the scope of writ jurisdiction to encompass new areas of law, including
environmental protection, human rights, and even economic regulations. This
expansion reflects the dynamic nature of writ jurisdiction as a tool for
addressing contemporary legal challenges. For example, in Vineet Narain v.
Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus
directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate high-profile
corruption cases, demonstrating the judiciary's proactive role in combating
corruption through writ jurisdiction. In this case, the Supreme Court treated a
letter as a writ petition, thereby expanding the accessibility of writ remedies
and paving the way for public interest litigation (PIL) to address violations of
fundamental rights.
The Black’s Law Dictionary further defines almost 109 types of Writs;
following are the types of writs to name a few:
(i) alias writ
(ii) alternative writ
(iii) close writ
CAs Handbook on Writs

(iv) concurrent writ

(v) conventual writ
(vi) ground writ
(vii) judicial writ
(viii) optional writ
(ix) proprietary writ
(x) remedial writ
(xi) testatum writ
(xii) vicontiel writ
(xiii) writ of association
(xiv) writ of conspiracy
(xv) writ of deceit
(xvi) writ of election
(xvii) writ of inquiry
(xviii) writ of privilege
(xix) writ of pro retorno habendo
To sum up, the Indian Constitution vide Article 32 and Article 226 provides
for a Writ remedy to be exercised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and
various Hon’ble High Courts, respectively which are in the nature of
prerogative writ which constitutes of Certiorari, Habeus Corpus, Mandamus,
Quo-Warranto and Prohibition.

10
 Chapter 4
Historical Background
Remedy by prerogative writs in England started with the very limited scope
and suffered from many procedural disadvantages. To overcome the
difficulties, Lord Gardiner (the Lord Chancellor) in pursuance of section
3(1)(e) of the Law Commission Act, 1965, requested the Law Commission "to
review the existing remedies for the judicial control of administrative acts and
commissions with a view to evolving a simpler and more effective
procedure". The Law Commission made their report in March 1976. It was
implemented by Rules of court (Order 53) in 1977 and given statutory force
in 1981 by section 31 of the Supreme Court Act, 1981.
It combined all the former remedies into one proceeding called judicial
review. Lord Denning explained the scope of this "judicial review":
"At one stroke the courts could grant whatever relief was appropriate. Not
only Certiorari and mandamus, but also declaration and injunctions. Even
damages. The procedure was much simpler and more expeditious. Just a
summons instead of a writ. No formal proceedings. The evidence is given by
affidavit. As a rule, no cross-examination, no discovery, and so forth. But
there were important safeguards. In particular, in order to qualify, the
appellant had to get the leave of a judge."
(see The Closing Chapter by Hon'ble Lord Denning)
The Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr., 2002
(4) SCC 388 stated the historical background of prerogative writs thus:
"Inasmuch as the Supreme Court enforces the fundamental rights by issuing
appropriate directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, Prohibition, quo warranto and Certiorari, it may be useful
to refer to, in brief, the characteristics of the writs in general and writ of
Certiorari in particular with which we are concerned here. In English law
there are two types of writs (i) judicial procedural writs like writ of summons,
writ of motion, etc., which are issued as a matter of course; these writs are
not in vogue in India and (ii) substantive writs often spoken of as high
prerogative writs like writ of quo warranto, habeas corups, mandamus,
Certiorari and Prohibition, etc.; they are frequently resorted to in Indian High
CAs Handbook on Writs

Courts and the Supreme Court. "Historically, Prohibition was a writ whereby
the royal courts of common law prohibited other courts from entertaining
matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the common law courts;
Certiorari was issued to bring the record of an inferior court into the King's
Bench for review or to remove indictments for trial in that court; mandamus
was directed to inferior courts and tribunals, and to public officers and
bodies, to order the performance of a public duty. All three were called
prerogative writs." In England while issuing these writs, at least in theory, the
assumption was that the King was present in the King's Court. The position
regarding the House of Lords is described thus, "of the Court of Parliament,
or of the King in Parliament as it is sometimes expressed, the only other
supreme tribunal in this country." in Rajunder Narain Rai v. Bijai Govind
Singh, 1836 (1) Moo. (PC) 117. They are discretionary writs but the
principles for issuing such writs are well defined. In the pre- constitutional
era, the jurisdiction to issue the prerogative writs was enjoyed only by three
chartered High Courts in India but with the coming into force of the
Constitution, all the High Courts and the Supreme Court are conferred
powers to issue those writs under Article 226 and Article 32, respectively, of
the Constitution. Regarding the writ jurisdiction, the High Courts in India are
placed virtually in the same position as the Courts of King's Bench in
England. It is a well-settled principle that the technicalities associated with
the prerogative writs in English Law have no role to play under our
constitutional scheme. It is, however, important to note that a writ of
Certiorari to call for records and examine the same for passing appropriate
orders is issued by a superior court to an inferior court which certifies its
records for examination. "Certiorari lies to bring decisions of an inferior court,
tribunal, public authority or any other body of persons before the High Court
for review so that the court may determine whether they should be quashed,
or to quash such decisions. The order of Prohibition is an order issuing out of
the High Court and directed to an inferior court or tribunal or public authority
which forbids that court or tribunal or authority to act in excess of its
jurisdiction or contrary to law. Both Certiorari and Prohibition are employed
for the control of inferior courts, tribunals and public authorities.

12
 Chapter 5
Tax Disputes and Courts Jurisdiction
Statutory Procedure
In income tax procedures, the assessing authority decides that matter of tax
determination, imposition of penalty, etc. Therefore, the tax dispute first
arises before the tax authority. The authority acts in a quasi-judicial field. It
acts both as an investigator as well as an adjudicator. If the assessee is
dissatisfied with the decision of assessing authority, he has been conferred
statutory right to agitate the matter by way of appellate procedures. The
powers of the first appellate authority are co-extensive and coterminous to
the primary tax authority. The second appellate forum is also a quasi-judicial.
It is the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), where the appeal is heard in a
manner like that of a civil court.
The next two appellate forum are the High Court and the Supreme Court,
where the assessee can agitate his case. These Courts are formal civil
courts. High Courts and the Supreme Court deal with matters that involve a
substantial question of law. A similar rite of taking up the matter to the High
Court and the Supreme Court is also available to the Tax Department.
Thus, for income tax matters, the matters that involve a question of facts,
ITAT is the final authority and the road ends there. Therefore, the ITAT is
considered as a final fact-finding authority.
Where the matters involve a substantial question of law, then only the
assesse or the Tax Department is allowed to take the matter before the High
Court and thereafter the Supreme Court.
Thus, an appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies with the High Court
under the Income tax Act, 1961. The time limit for filing the same is 180 days
from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal by the taxpayer. The High
Court may admit an appeal even after the lapse of this period if it deems fit.
Thereafter, an appeal against the order of the High Court lies with the
Supreme Court. Such an appeal can be filed only when the High Court grants
a certificate stating that a case is fit for filing an appeal before the Supreme
Court. If the High Court refuses to grant such a certificate, then an appeal
CAs Handbook on Writs

can be brought before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave

Petition.
For indirect taxes, taxpayers’ similar road for appeal is prescribed. If any
party to the appeal is not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, then an
appeal can be preferred before the jurisdictional High Court; however, such
appeal can only be preferred if the issue involves a question of law - in other
words, if an issue is related to a question of fact, then the order of the
Tribunal is final. Further appeal against the order of the High Court can be
preferred before the Supreme Court, the highest court in India. The order
passed by the Supreme Court is final and binding upon both the parties and
no further appeal can be preferred against the same.
In the Indian legal system, writ petitions serve as a mechanism to challenge
decisions made by various authorities, including the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal (ITAT). While the ITAT is a specialized tribunal for tax disputes, its
decisions can be contested in higher courts under specific circumstances.

Challenging ITAT Decisions:

1. High Court:
o Writ Petitions: Parties may file writ petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to challenge ITAT orders. However, the High Court
typically entertain such petitions only when there is a substantial question of
law, a violation of natural justice, or if the petitioner has exhausted all
statutory remedies. For instance, in Deeksha Suri v. ITAT, the Delhi High
Court dismissed writ petitions filed against ITAT's assessment orders,
emphasizing that once statutory remedies are exhausted, writ petitions on
the same issues become non-maintainable.
2. Supreme Court:
Special Leave Petitions (SLP): Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the
Supreme Court has the discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal
against any judgment, decree, or order from any court or tribunal in India,
including the ITAT. This provision allows the Supreme Court to address
substantial questions of law or prevent gross injustice.
Notable Case References:
• Writ Petition against ITAT Order Due to Judicial Delay: In a case
where a writ petition against an ITAT order was not heard due to the

14
 Tax Disputes and Courts Jurisdiction

retirement of the presiding judge, the Supreme Court directed the High Court
to rehear the petition, underscoring the importance of timely judicial
proceedings.
• Maintainability of Writ Petitions against Assessment Orders: The
Supreme Court has addressed the maintainability of writ petitions under
Article 226, particularly emphasizing that when alternative statutory remedies
are available, parties should typically exhaust those remedies before
approaching the High Court.

15
 Chapter 6
Intersection of Writs and PIL
What is PIL?
In the Indian legal context, PIL stands for Public Interest Litigation. It is a
powerful legal tool that allows individuals, groups, or organizations to file a
petition in court seeking justice in matters of public interest. The concept of
PIL in India is rooted in promoting access to justice for marginalized and
disadvantaged sections of society, ensuring the protection of fundamental
rights, and addressing broader public concerns.
Unlike traditional litigation, where only the aggrieved party can approach the
court, in a PIL, any person or organization can file a petition on behalf of
those who cannot represent themselves. It can also be initiated by the courts
suo motu (on their own).
To address grievances related to environmental protection, corruption, social
welfare, human rights, and governance. To provide a mechanism for judicial
intervention in areas where administrative actions or inactions have failed to
serve public interest.
PILs can be filed in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or
the Supreme Court under Article 32. The strict principle of locus Standi
(right to bring an action) is relaxed, allowing individuals or entities to file
petitions even if they are not directly affected.

Is PIL and WRITs are inter-linked?

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and writs are closely linked in the Indian
legal system, as PILs are often filed in the form of writ petitions. Writs are
constitutional remedies provided under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian
Constitution for enforcing fundamental rights or other legal rights. PIL uses
this mechanism to address issues of public interest. A landmark case in this
context is S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), also known as the "Judges'
Transfer Case." In this case, the Supreme Court held that any member of the
public could approach the court for a writ if a public injury was involved,
significantly expanding the scope of writs to include matters of public
interest.
 Intersection of Writs and PIL

Connection between PIL and Writs

1. Writ Jurisdiction:
o PILs are filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 or in the
High Courts under Article 226.
o These articles empower the courts to issue writs to protect
fundamental rights (Article 32) and other legal rights (Article
226).
2. Relaxation of Locus Standi:
o Traditional writ petitions require the petitioner to demonstrate a
personal grievance or harm.
o In the case of PILs, the courts relax this requirement, allowing
any public-spirited individual or organization to approach the
judiciary on behalf of others.
3. Types of Writs Used in PILs: The following writs are commonly
invoked in PIL cases:
o Habeas Corpus: To challenge illegal detention or
imprisonment.
o Mandamus: To compel a public authority to perform a statutory
duty.
o Prohibition: To prevent a lower court or tribunal from exceeding
its jurisdiction.
o Certiorari: To quash an order passed by a lower court or
tribunal that exceeds jurisdiction or violates the law.
o Quo Warranto: To challenge the authority of a person holding a
public office.
4. Scope of Relief in PILs:
o PILs filed through writ petitions address not just individual
grievances but systemic issues affecting the public, such as
environmental concerns, human rights violations, corruption,
and governance failures.

17
CAs Handbook on Writs

o The courts can issue broad directives to the government or

public authorities for remedial measures.

Impact of PIL on Writ Jurisdiction:

The introduction of PIL has led to a more active and interventionist judiciary,
particularly in areas where the executive has failed to act. Writs issued in PIL
cases have addressed a wide range of issues, including environmental
degradation, human rights violations, and corruption. For instance, in M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India (1987), a series of cases involving environmental
protection saw the Supreme Court issuing writs of mandamus to enforce
environmental regulations. This demonstrated the use of writs as tools for
public governance and the protection of collective rights.

Challenges and Criticisms:

While PILs have expanded access to justice, they have also faced criticism
for leading to judicial overreach. The issuance of writs in PIL cases has
occasionally blurred the lines between the judiciary and the executive, raising
questions about the appropriate limits of judicial intervention. Despite these
challenges, writs remain a cornerstone of the PIL framework, providing a
mechanism for addressing grievances that affect the broader public interest.

Differences between PILs and Traditional Writs

Aspect Traditional Writ Petition Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Locus Filed by an aggrieved party Filed by any individual or group
Standi directly affected. in public interest.
Purpose Addresses individual Addresses broader public or
grievances. societal issues.
Scope Limited to specific Expansive, covering systemic
violations of legal rights. issues and policy failures.
Outcome Focused on relief for the Aims at broader public benefit
petitioner. and systemic changes.

18
 Chapter 7
Writs and Fundamental Rights
The power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs under
Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution is a cornerstone of the judicial
system, providing a robust mechanism to protect and enforce fundamental
rights. These writs, which include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, and quo warranto, act as direct remedies for individuals whose
rights have been violated. By enabling citizens to approach the courts for the
enforcement of their rights, these provisions ensure that the constitutional
guarantees are not merely theoretical but are upheld in practice.

Role of Writs in Protecting Fundamental Rights

A notable instance of writ issuance was in the landmark case of Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court significantly
expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The
court held that any procedure established by law must meet the criteria of
being "just, fair, and reasonable." The judgment emphasized that personal
liberty cannot be curtailed arbitrarily. In this case, the court issued a writ of
mandamus, compelling the government to return the petitioner’s confiscated
passport. This decision not only upheld the petitioner’s rights but also
marked a shift towards a broader and more progressive interpretation of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Expanding Interpretation of Fundamental Rights

Indian courts have consistently interpreted fundamental rights expansively,
broadening their scope to address contemporary challenges and emerging
concerns. While the Constitution originally envisioned the protection of
traditional civil and political rights, judicial interpretations have extended the
ambit of these rights to include socio-economic and environmental
dimensions.
For instance, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the
Supreme Court recognized that the right to livelihood is an essential
component of the right to life under Article 21. The case arose when the
Bombay Municipal Corporation sought to evict pavement dwellers. The court
CAs Handbook on Writs

held that such evictions, without adequate rehabilitation measures, would

violate the right to life. A writ of mandamus was issued, preventing the
eviction and reinforcing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding socio-economic
rights through the vehicle of writ jurisdiction.
Similarly, environmental rights have gained recognition under the judiciary's
expansive interpretation of fundamental rights. The right to a clean and
healthy environment has been deemed integral to the right to life. In cases
such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the court issued writs to
mandate stringent measures to control pollution, demonstrating the proactive
role of the judiciary in addressing environmental concerns. The judiciary's
commitment to safeguarding emerging rights ensures that the Constitution
remains dynamic and responsive to the needs of society.

20
 Chapter 8
Writs and the Doctrine of Natural
Justice
Ensuring Fairness through Writs:
The doctrine of natural justice, encompassing principles such as Audi
alteram partem (the right to be heard) and nemo judex in causa Sua (no one
should be a judge in their own cause), is a cornerstone of administrative law.
Writs play a critical role in enforcing these principles, particularly when
administrative actions have violated the principles of natural justice. A
significant case that influenced Indian jurisprudence is Ridge v. Baldwin
(1964). Although this is a UK case, it has had a profound impact on Indian
law. The House of Lords ruled that the dismissal of a police officer without
giving him an opportunity to be heard was invalid, reinforcing the importance
of natural justice in administrative proceedings. Indian courts frequently cite
this case in writ petitions challenging administrative actions.

Writs as Tools for Judicial Review:

Writs of certiorari and prohibition are particularly relevant in cases involving
breaches of natural justice. These writs enable higher courts to quash
decisions made by lower courts or tribunals that have violated these
principles, thereby ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be
done. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970), the Supreme Court issued a
writ of certiorari to annul the selection of candidates for a government post
because the selection process had violated the principles of natural justice.
The court emphasized that even administrative actions must adhere to these
principles, thus broadening the scope of judicial review through writs.

Contemporary Challenges:
Enforcing natural justice through writs presents challenges in an era of rapid
administrative expansion and increasing complexity of governance. Courts
must balance the need for efficient administration with the requirement to
uphold procedural fairness, often resulting in intricate and nuanced
judgments. Despite these challenges, the doctrine of natural justice remains
CAs Handbook on Writs

a fundamental aspect of Indian law, with writs serving as essential tools to

ensure that administrative actions are conducted fairly and justly.

22
 Chapter 9
Principles of Writs in Administrative
Actions
The principles of writs in relation to administrative actions, the impact
of technological advancements, and the future of writ jurisdiction in
India: -

Writs and Administrative Discretion:

Controlling Administrative Discretion:
One of the key roles of writs in modern jurisprudence is to control the abuse
of administrative discretion. Discretionary powers are essential for effective
governance, but they must be exercised within the bounds of the law. Writs
such as mandamus and certiorari are crucial in ensuring that discretion is not
exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
Sarkar (1952), the Supreme Court held that administrative discretion must
be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. The court quashed the government's action, demonstrating the
judiciary's role in overseeing the exercise of discretionary powers.
Principles Governing Discretion:
The exercise of administrative discretion is guided by principles such as
reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality. Writs serve as a mechanism to
enforce these principles, ensuring that administrative decisions are just and
equitable. The Supreme Court, in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
(1974), established that equality before the law requires administrative
discretion to be exercised in a fair and just manner, free from arbitrariness.
This case emphasized that writs can be used to challenge administrative
actions that violate the principle of equality.
Judicial Review of Discretionary Powers:
Writ jurisdiction allows courts to review administrative actions to ensure that
they conform to legal standards. This review focuses on the manner in which
a decision was made rather than its merits. Courts examine whether the
decision was within the scope of the authority, made in good faith, and based
CAs Handbook on Writs

on relevant considerations. In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India

(1985), the Supreme Court observed that administrative discretion is not
absolute and must be exercised within the framework of the law. The court
issued a writ to ensure that the government’s discretionary powers were not
misused, reinforcing the role of writs in maintaining the rule of law.

Impact of Technology on Writ Jurisdiction:

Technological Advancements and Writs:
The rapid advancement of technology has transformed the landscape of legal
practice, including writ jurisdiction. Digital platforms and e-governance have
introduced new challenges and opportunities for the application of writs.
Issues such as data privacy, cyber security, and digital rights have
increasingly become subjects of writ petitions. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union
of India (2017), also known as the Privacy Case, the Supreme Court
recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. This landmark case highlighted the judiciary's willingness to
adapt writ jurisdiction to address issues arising from technological
advancements, particularly in the context of state surveillance and data
protection.
E-Governance and Writs:
The shift towards e-governance has impacted the administration of writs.
With the digitization of government records, online grievance redressal
mechanisms, and electronic filing of petitions, writ jurisdiction has become
more accessible to the public. However, this shift has also raised concerns
about digital exclusion and the need for robust cyber security measures to
protect sensitive information. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
(Aadhaar Case) (2018), the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus
directing the government to ensure that the Aadhaar system complies with
data protection norms and does not infringe upon the fundamental rights of
citizens. This case underscored the role of writs in safeguarding digital rights
in an increasingly digital world.
Challenges of Cyber Jurisdiction:
As more governmental and administrative functions move online, the scope
of writ jurisdiction will need to evolve to address the unique challenges posed
by cyber governance. Issues such as jurisdictional boundaries in cyberspace,
regulation of digital platforms, and protection of digital rights will require

24
 Principles of Writs in Administrative Actions

innovative applications of writs. Courts are beginning to explore the

implications of cyber jurisdiction, and future writ petitions are likely to focus
on ensuring that digital governance adheres to the principles of
transparency, accountability, and legality.

25
 Chapter 10
Writs and Environmental Protection
Environmental Jurisprudence and Writs
Environmental protection has emerged as a significant area of writ
jurisdiction, with courts issuing writs to enforce environmental laws, prevent
ecological degradation, and uphold the constitutional right to a clean and
healthy environment. Public interest litigation has played a crucial role in
bringing environmental issues before the courts. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India (Ganga Pollution Case) (1988), the Supreme Court issued a series of
writs of mandamus directing various state agencies to take action to prevent
pollution of the Ganges River. This landmark case established the principle
that environmental protection is an integral part of the right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution.

Principles of Sustainable Development

Indian courts have embraced the principles of sustainable development,
using writ jurisdiction to balance economic growth with environmental
conservation. Writs have been issued to prevent activities that threaten
ecological balance, enforce environmental regulations, and ensure that
development projects comply with environmental standards. In Narmada
Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court issued writs
related to the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, balancing the need for
development with the rights of affected communities and environmental
protection. This case demonstrated the judiciary's approach to sustainable
development through writ jurisdiction.

Environmental Rights as Fundamental Rights

The recognition of environmental rights as fundamental rights has expanded
the scope of writ petitions in environmental matters. Courts have issued writs
to address issues such as deforestation, air and water pollution, and the
impact of industrial activities on local communities. In T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court issued a writ of
mandamus to enforce forest conservation laws and prevent deforestation.
 Writs and Environmental Protection

The case underscored the judiciary's proactive role in environmental

protection and the use of writs to uphold environmental rights.

27
 Chapter 11
Future of Writ Jurisdiction in India
Emerging Trends in Writ Jurisdiction
The future of writ jurisdiction in India will be shaped by emerging legal and
societal trends, including the increasing importance of digital rights,
environmental sustainability, and global economic governance. Courts will
need to adapt writ jurisdiction to address these challenges while maintaining
the core principles of justice, fairness, and legality. The continued evolution
of public interest litigation, particularly in areas such as climate change, data
privacy, and human rights, will likely lead to an expansion of writ jurisdiction.
Courts are expected to play a more proactive role in shaping public policy
through the issuance of writs.

Challenges and Opportunities

One of the key challenges for the future of writ jurisdiction is balancing
judicial activism with judicial restraint. As courts take on more complex and
politically sensitive cases through writ petitions, there is a risk of
overstepping the boundaries of judicial review. However, this also presents
an opportunity for the judiciary to reinforce the rule of law and protect
fundamental rights in a rapidly changing world. Another challenge is ensuring
that writ jurisdiction remains accessible to all citizens, particularly in an era of
digital governance. The judiciary must address issues such as digital
exclusion and the need for cyber security to ensure that writ petitions remain
an effective tool for justice.

Role of Chartered Accountants

While before the Court only Advocates can appear, there is a significant role
can be played by a chartered accountant.
When income tax disputes escalate to litigation, CAs becomes indispensable
allies for taxpayers. They collaborate with legal professionals to build a
robust defence strategy, ensuring that the taxpayer’s case is presented
comprehensively and convincingly in court. CAs plays a critical role in
analysing legal precedents, preparing financial evidence, and providing
 Future of Writ Jurisdiction in India

expert testimony, all of which contribute to a favourable outcome for the

taxpayer.
A chartered accountant is best aware of facts, the order passed under any
tax law, provisions of law and the attendant judicial thought process by way
of several decisions rendered till the date.
Therefore, a CA can be able to guide the taxpayer to prefer writ remedy for
quick relief from the offence committed against him. In case of doubt, a CA
can present his case to the council.
A CA can play role in selection of counsel for appearing to argue the writ.
Drafting of writ petition can be made by a chartered accountant.
When the writ petition comes up for hearing, a CA can assist the advocate
appearing on behalf of the taxpayer. He can make the groundwork and
administrative preparations. He can guide the advocate of the line of
argument.

What should a CA know?

A Chartered Accountant (CA) should have a basic understanding of writs
in the Indian legal system, as they can play a critical role in certain
professional scenarios involving taxation, corporate governance, regulatory
compliance, and disputes with government authorities. Writs are
constitutional remedies available under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and
Article 226 (High Courts) of the Indian Constitution to protect legal or
fundamental rights. As a CA, understanding writs is essential because they
are often used to challenge:
• Actions by tax authorities.
• Administrative orders or regulations that violate rights.
• Arbitrary decisions by government or regulatory bodies like the GST
Council, Income Tax Department, SEBI, or RBI.

Situations Where a CA May Be Involved

A CA may encounter writ petitions in the following situations:

29
CAs Handbook on Writs

Taxation Matters
• Filing or advising on writ petitions against:
o Unreasonable tax assessments or penalties.
o Refusal to grant legitimate tax refunds.
o Arbitrary notices issued under Income Tax Act or GST laws.
o Violation of principles of natural justice, such as denial of a
hearing.
Regulatory Compliance
• Challenging decisions by regulatory bodies like:
o SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India).
o RBI (Reserve Bank of India).
o MCA (Ministry of Corporate Affairs).
• For example, if a company's license or registration is suspended
without due process, a CA may advise on filing a writ.
Corporate Disputes
• Advising clients in cases where public authorities or tribunals interfere
in business matters beyond their jurisdiction.
Procedural Violations
• Filing writs for breach of:
o The right to be heard.
o Fair treatment during audits, assessments, or inspections.
Key Principles to Keep in Mind
• Alternative Remedy: Courts generally discourage writs if an alternate
statutory remedy (e.g., appeal) is available unless:
o There is a violation of fundamental rights.
o The statutory authority acts beyond jurisdiction.
o The issue involves a question of law.

30
 Future of Writ Jurisdiction in India

• Timeliness: Writ petitions should be filed promptly after the grievance

arises.
• Documents and Evidence: Proper documentation is crucial to
demonstrate:
o Violation of rights.
o Lack of jurisdiction by the authority.
A writ petition can be filed before any High Court, as a whole or in part,
whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises, as per Article 226. Whether or
not the authority the writ petition is filed against is located within the territory
is irrelevant. The High Court has broader authority to issue writs compared to
the Supreme Court.
Stages of Writ, normally, are as under:
Filing a Writ Petition involves several procedural steps:
1. Drafting of petition: this should be done meticulously. Clearly mention
grounds, facts, and legal provisions relevant to the matter. It should
bring out that there is violation of fundamental rights or the illegal
action of the concerned authority.
2. Supporting affidavits stating the relevant facts should be executed.
These affidavits serve as evidence in the case.
3. Relevant documents should be annexed. These documents
substantiate the case.
4. Court fees for writ are prescribed under the court rules. Payment of
fees should be made.
5. The set of documents and affidavit of the ‘writ petition’ should be filed
in the relevant court. The petitioner must ensure that multiple copies
are submitted, as required by the court.
6. On writ petition being filed, a copy is served to the respondent, i.e., the
government authority or individual against whom the petition is filed.
7. An opportunity to respond to the allegations is available to the other
party.
8. The High Court or the Supreme Court will schedule hearings where
both parties present. Both parties present their respective arguments

31
CAs Handbook on Writs

and evidence. The court can issue interim orders or directions as

necessary.
9. Finally, the court will deliver a judgment based on the merits of the
case. If the petition is allowed, the court may issue appropriate writs or
directions to remedy the situation.
The court's decision is binding, and it plays a crucial role in upholding the
rule of law in protecting fundamental rights of the petitioner.
FORMAT OF WRIT PETITION
A SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES (Specimen enclosed)
B FROM NEXT PAGE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2005
IN THE MATTER OF
……………………………………………..
Petitioner
versus
……………………………………………..
Respondents
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE ……. ____OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF UNDER ARTICLE_OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and
His Lordship's Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner abovenamed.

32
 Future of Writ Jurisdiction in India

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. Facts of the case
2. Question(s) of Law
3. Grounds
4. Averment: -
That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition in any High
Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the
present petition.

PRAYER

In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be

pleased:
(i) .............
(ii) to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed
necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS INDUTY

BOUND, EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
DRAWN:
FILED ON:

C The Writ Petition should be accompanied by:

(i) Affidavit of the petitioner duly sworn.
(ii) Annexures as referred to in the Writ Petitioner, Rs.2/- per
annexure.
(iii) 1+5 copies of the Writ Petition are required

33
CAs Handbook on Writs

(iv) Court fee of Rs.50/- per petitioner (In Crl. Matter no court fee is
payable)
(v) Index (As per Specimen enclosed)
(vi) Cover page (as per Specimen enclosed)
(vii) Any application to be filed, Rs. 12/- per application
(viii) Memo of appearance, Rs. 5/- Court fee.
Petitioner-in-person may see a copy of WP (kept with AR-IB) to have
practical knowledge about drafting of petition.

34
 Chapter 12
Case Law on Jurisdiction and
Assessment in Tax Matters
1. Synopsis and List of Dates
2. Writ Petition along with Affidavit in support
3. Annexures
4. Application if any

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2005
IN THE MATTER OF
……………………………………………..
Petitioner
versus
……………………………………………..
Respondents
PAPER-BOOK
FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE
FILED BY:
(ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER/
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON)
Filed on:
Misty Meadows (P.) Ltd. v. UOI [2024] 162 taxmann.com 702 (P & H)
33. Thus, when there was no search conducted under Section 132 and 132A
of the Act as against the petitioner and only a panchnama reflects the name
CAs Handbook on Writs

of the petitioner prepared at the registered office of M3M India Limited, the
action of the respondents in passing second assessment order on
07.02.2024 on the basis of notice under Section 153A dated 05.01.2018 is
held to be unjustified and without jurisdiction. Once the search and seizure
were conducted and assessment order dated 28.02.2014 was passed by
invoking Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2006-07 to 2012-13, fresh order
without conducting search and seizure operation would not be sustainable in
law. In view of the aforesaid findings and conclusions, we are satisfied that
the entire proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act including
notice issued on 05.01.2018 are liable to be quashed.
35. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the notice dated 05.01.2018;
assessment order and demand notice dated 07.02.2024 are quashed and set
aside, and the proceedings are held to be non est.
H. P. Diamonds India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [[2022] 139 taxmann.com 516
(SC)]
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
3233/2019 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition in the
most casual and cursory manner and the order is a non-speaking order and
nothing has been discussed on merits at all and the recent decision of this
Court in the case of Vishal Ashwin Patel ([2022] 136 taxmann.com 372/443
ITR 1 (SC)) by which this Court has set aside the similar order passed by the
very Bench and remanded the matter to the High Court, we set aside the
impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition. We
remand the matter to the High Court to decide and dispose of the writ petition
in accordance with law and on merits and to pass a reasoned and speaking
order.
5. The present Appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No
costs.
Meerut Development Authority v. Pr. CIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1226
(All)
5. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, writ petition is disposed of with the
direction, let the Appeal Nos. CIT(A), Ghaziabad/10660/2016-17, CIT(A),
Meerut/10399/2017-18, CIT(A), Meerut/10337/2018-19, NFAC/2016-
17/1020668, NFAC/2016-17/1020669, NFAC/2017-18/10039960 and

36
 Case Law on Jurisdiction and Assessment in Tax Matters

NFAC/2019-20/10193992 be heard and decided by the Appeal Authority

within a period of three months from today.
6. In view of the facts noted above, for the period of three months or disposal
of the above-described appeals, whichever is earlier, no coercive measure
shall be adopted against the petitioner for A.Y.s 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-
21.
Virchow Drugs Ltd. v. ITO [2023] 156 taxmann.com 89 (Telangana)
22. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the
admitted factual matrix, as has been, revealed in the preceding paragraphs,
we are of the considered view that the present is also the case which
squarely stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd. (supra), and the recent decision of the High
Court of Bombay in the case of SLSA India (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the earlier
judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Spice Infotainmenti Ltd.
(supra).
23. The present Writ Petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed,
holding that the notice dated 24-3-2023 issued section 148A(d) of the Act
and the consequential notice of the same date i.e. 24-3-2023 under section
148 of the Act, both being bad in law, are set aside, as the entire
proceedings itself is against a non-existing Company. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
Modern Living Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2023] 153 taxmann.com 306
(Bombay)
5. We find that in the present writ petition the petitioner has raised a
challenge to the initiation of proceedings and exercise of power under
section 148 of the Act of 1961 by urging that the statutory requirements
prescribed by Section 148 have not been satisfied. In other words, it is
submitted that since there is no existence of any reason to believe, re-
opening of the proceedings by the respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction.
Since the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 of initiating the proceedings
itself is under challenge, the writ petition would be maintainable. In the light
of the challenge as raised it cannot be said that the writ petition is not
maintainable. The further question as regards the entitlement to any relief
would be a matter to be considered on merits while entertaining such

37
CAs Handbook on Writs

jurisdictional challenge is an aspect to be considered on merits. It is

therefore held that the writ petition was filed is maintainable and the same is
liable to be entertained on merits.
6. The preliminary objection to maintainability of the writ petition is thus
turned down. Since challenge as raised in the writ petition is required to be
considered further, we have not referred to the various decisions relied upon
by the learned counsel for the parties on merits since the same would be
considered when the writ petition is heard on the challenge as raised. The
writ petition shall accordingly be heard for admission. Place the same for
admission accordingly.
Fino Paytech Ltd. v. UOI [2024] 161 taxmann.com 416 (Bombay)
4. It is submitted that the show-cause-notice was issued on 30 December
2020 which was almost after one year from the date in the change of
address. The show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner on an address
which was in fact the address prior to even the first change of petitioner's
address which was affected on 23 October 2019 on the GST portal. It is thus
submitted that as the show-cause-notice itself was not served on the
petitioner or received, the petitioner could not participate in the adjudication
of the show-cause-notice and eventually, the adjudicating officer proceeded
to adjudicate the show-cause-notice while passing the ex-parte order-in-
original.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to partly allow this
petition by the following order:-
ORDER

(i) The impugned order-in-original dated 30 August 2022 (Exhibit-B) is

quashed and set aside.
(ii) Proceedings stand remanded to the Adjudicating Officer, namely,
the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, and Belapur
Commissionerate.
(iii) The petitioner shall place on record the reply to the show cause-
notice along with the appropriate documents within a period of four
weeks from today.
(iv) After a reply is filed, the Commissioner shall fix a convenient date
for hearing the petitioner and proceed to pass an order within a

38
 Case Law on Jurisdiction and Assessment in Tax Matters

period of eight weeks from the date of hearing.

(v) All contentions of the parties on the adjudication of the show-cause-
notice are expressly kept open.
(vi) Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

Nikunj Steel v. State of Punjab [2019] 104 taxmann.com 454 (P & H)

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present
petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we
dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take
a decision on the representation dated 13.3.2019 (Annexure P-10), in
accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one week from the
date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
SABH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. v ACIT W.P. (C) 1357/2016 (Del) Dt.
25.09.2017
18. Thus, the Petitioner cannot be said to have failed to disclose fully and
truly all the material facts. This being a jurisdictional issue, the assumption of
jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act was erroneous. The notice
dated 20th March 2015 and the subsequent order dated 1st February, 2016
deserve to be and are hereby quashed.
19. Before parting with the case, the Court would like to observe that on a
routine basis, a large number of writ petitions are filed challenging the
reopening of assessments by the Revenue under Sections 147 and 148 of
the Act and despite numerous judgments on this issue, the same errors are
repeated by the concerned Revenue authorities. In this background, the
Court would like the Revenue to adhere to the following guidelines in matters
of reopening of assessments:
(i) While communicating the reasons for reopening the assessment, the
copy of the standard form used by the AO for obtaining the approval of
the Superior Officer should itself be provided to the Assessee. This
would contain the comment or endorsement of the Superior Officer
with his name, designation and date. In other words, merely stating the
reasons in a letter addressed by the AO to the Assessee is to be
avoided.

39
CAs Handbook on Writs

(ii) The reasons to believe ought to spell out all the reasons and grounds
available with the AO for re-opening the assessment - especially in
those cases where the first proviso to Section 147 is attracted. The
reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report
which may form the basis of the reasons and http://www.itatonline.org
W.P. (C) 1357/2016 Page 13 of 13 any enquiry conducted by the AO
on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof.
(iii) Where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as
a letter or report, such document and/ or relevant portions of such
report should be enclosed along with the reasons;
(iv) the exercise of considering the Assessee’s objections to the reopening
of assessment is not a mechanical ritual. It is a quasiju dicial
function. The order disposing of the objections should deal with each
objection and give proper reasons for the conclusion. No attempt
should be made to add to the reasons for reopening of the assessment
beyond what has already been disclosed.
20. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
There will be no order as to costs.

40