PIL Seeking Mandate on Prescribing Time Limits for Disposal of Duplicate PAN Cancellation Applications Disposed of; Court Emphasizes Administrative Process Over Direct Mandamus
In a significant judgment delivered on September 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Abhay Gupta. The petitioner sought a judicial directive to the Union of India and Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to prescribe a definitive timeframe for the disposal of applications for cancellation or surrender of duplicate Permanent Account Numbers (PAN).
The petitioner's grievance arose from Section 139A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that a person can possess only one PAN. The petitioner highlighted the absence of any statutory or circularly prescribed timeframe for the authorities to decide upon applications for cancellation of duplicate PANs. This lacuna, according to the petitioner, creates hardships for taxpayers who face difficulties in filing their Income Tax Returns and accessing PAN-linked services due to prolonged pendency of such applications.
During proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Circular No. 7 of 2022 issued by the CBDT requires linking of PAN with Aadhaar and mandates the surrender of additional PANs. However, the petitioner's Right to Information (RTI) application revealed that no specific timeline exists for deciding cancellation requests, exacerbating taxpayer difficulties.
The Union of India, represented by Senior Standing Counsel and other government advocates, acknowledged the issue but contended that prescribing a timeline involves amendment or modification of administrative rules and frameworks, which is beyond the scope of judicial intervention at this stage. They assured the Court that the authorities are concerned about undue delays and strive to expedite disposal of such applications.
The Court observed that since the petitioner had not first approached the CBDT with a formal representation before filing the PIL, it would be more appropriate to allow the petitioner to submit a detailed representation outlining the hardships caused by the absence of a prescribed timeframe. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file such a representation within two weeks.
Importantly, the Court directed the CBDT to consider the petitioner's representation and take a decision in accordance with law within eight weeks from receipt of the representation. The decision must be communicated to the petitioner. With this, the Court disposed of the PIL, emphasizing that administrative remedies should be exhausted before seeking judicial intervention.
This judgment underscores the Delhi High Court's preference for administrative compliance and procedural propriety, ensuring that policy and procedural changes are considered within the appropriate executive framework rather than through direct judicial mandates.
Bottom Line:
Public Interest Litigation seeking prescription of timeframe for disposal of applications for cancellation of duplicate PAN - In absence of prior representation to CBDT, Court declined to issue direct mandamus to frame such timeline and permitted petitioner to submit representation - CBDT directed to consider representation and take appropriate decision within eight weeks.
Statutory provision(s):
Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 139A(7)
Abhay Gupta v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2991114
