2014 (4) TMI 1196 - HC - Central Excise

Reward Scheme - evasion and theft of taxes by M/s Cairn Energy Private Limited - Held that - apart from the claim of the petitioner being totally stale and belated, it is also disputed one. This is not a case wherein the petitioner can claim the reward as of right. If the petitioner is basing the case on the guidelines even then he has been unable to satisfy the Court as to how he is eligible to receive the reward amount. Once the Department is disputing his claim and it is not only on the complaints made by the petitioner the investigations were carried out, then, this is not a case where we can grant any relief in writ jurisdiction - The claim of the petitioner for reward is highly disputed and such disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Mandamus for reward scheme compliance and reward claim dispute.

Mandamus for Reward Scheme Compliance:
The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondents to adhere to the Reward Scheme framed by the Central Government in 2001 and pay 20% of the reward amount. The petitioner, a businessman in petroleum products, alleged evasion of duty by certain companies and claimed to have initiated the Department's action leading to the detection of duty evasion. The petitioner relied on the reward scheme guidelines enabling rewards for informers in cases of duty evasion under various Acts. However, the respondents denied the petitioner's involvement in detecting duty evasion, citing references received independently from Members of Parliament that initiated investigations by the Central Excise Intelligence. The Department concluded that the petitioner's information did not lead to any case against the accused company, hence rejecting the reward claim as not falling under the purview of the Reward Rules. The Department emphasized that rewards are discretionary and not a matter of right, challenging the petitioner's entitlement to the reward amount.

Reward Claim Dispute:
The petitioner's rejoinder reiterated the complaints submitted and the guidelines under which the reward claim was made. The Court analyzed the petitioner's claim, finding it stale, belated, and disputed, not meeting the eligibility criteria for the reward amount. As the Department contested the petitioner's role in the investigations and the basis for the reward claim, the Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved under writ jurisdiction. The Court concluded that since the claim lacked merit, was disputed, and the petitioner had no legal right to the reward, the Writ Petition was dismissed, emphasizing that the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot entertain such claims. The judgment highlighted that the reward claim was highly disputed, and the Court could not grant relief based on the petitioner's arguments. The Writ Petition was dismissed without costs.