9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to decision in exhibit P2 and direction to grant petitioner 20% of seized amount as a reward. Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash the decision in exhibit P2 and requested a direction for the respondents to grant him 20% of the amount seized from a firm. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the reward based on providing information leading to the detection of undisclosed income and subsequent confiscation of amounts. A previous order directed reconsideration of the petitioner's case by the chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Exhibit P2 was issued by a competent committee, stating that the reward previously paid to the petitioner was proper considering the nature and extent of information provided. The committee found the petitioner's claim for 20% of the seized amount as a reward to be misconceived, as the reward rules of the Income-tax Department focus on extra taxes realized due to the information supplied, not the total amount seized. The respondents presented exhibits disclosing guidelines and meeting minutes leading to exhibit P2. The factors considered for determining the reward included the accuracy of information, extent and nature of help rendered, risks undertaken, expenses incurred, and extra taxes realized directly due to the information provided. The quantum of extra taxes realized would be determined after final assessments. The court emphasized that the relevant yardstick for the reward was the extra taxes directly attributable to the informant's information. The committee thoroughly considered the petitioner's case and reasons for the reward in the meeting minutes. The judge highlighted that the High Court should not act as an appellate authority over the committee's decision. Citing precedents from the Patna High Court and Allahabad High Court, the judge emphasized that the court should not interfere with decisions like the one in exhibit P2. Finding no legal flaw in exhibit R3(C) or exhibit P2, the judge dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim did not warrant intervention by the court.
|
