Is corporate India susceptible to high court writ jurisdiction?

Corporate India has been largely content to sit on the sidelines in silence as successive Indian governments have overseen a dramatic expansion in the scale and reach of India’s tax deduction and collection at source regimes.

In so doing, corporate India may have well become the government’s unwitting patsy – subjecting themselves to the writ jurisdiction of the country’s high courts – jurisdiction ordinarily reserved only for the State and its instrumentalities.

Why? Because tax collection is fundamentally a public function. And as the Supreme Court of India has held time and time again, and most recently in Shobha v Muthoot Finance (SLP(C) Nos. 2625-27 of 2025), “A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against …a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature… if a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced.”

When could writ jurisdiction be invoked? Several scenarios come to mind—incorrect or excessive tax withholding by a payor, failure to deposit withheld tax with the government, or a payor’s failure to issue a tax deduction certificate.

In each of the above cases, a taxpayer could seek a writ of mandamus to compel a recalcitrant payor to apply the correct tax treatment, deposit withheld tax with the government, and issue tax deduction certificates.

By remaining passive, corporate India risks not only becoming an instrument of government tax enforcement but also subjecting itself to public law remedies traditionally aimed at the State.