2012 (5) TMI 81 - HC - Service Tax

Reward to informer - Proceedings under Article 226 demanding a release of reward outstanding under a scheme of the Union Government as he has submitted information to the DGCEI pointing out a case of service tax evasion by a company - Held that - The issue as regards the culpability of the assessee is still pending in appeal before the CESTAT and the matter has not attained finality -the payment of a reward at this stage cannot be directed by the Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 - do not accept the basic request of the Petitioner to the effect that the committee should be directed to consider the case or that the reward should be disbursed at the interim stage - Decided case in Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy (2003 -TMI - 46829 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)- CESTAT be requested to expedite the disposal of the pending appeal to be fair and proper.

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking direction for reward release under Union Government scheme.
2. Dispute over service tax evasion by a company and reward entitlement.
3. Interpretation of guidelines for grant of rewards under circulars.
4. Legal principles governing the discretionary payment of rewards.
5. Application of Clause 6.3 for advance/interim rewards.
6. Discretionary authority for reward determination and appeal process.
7. Consideration of reward payment pending finality of liability determination.
8. Request for expedited disposal of pending appeal by CESTAT.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner filed a petition seeking direction for the release of a reward owed under a Union Government scheme for providing information on service tax evasion by a company. The Petitioner claimed that despite recovery made by the Government, the reward remained unpaid, prompting the legal action under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The Respondent, through an affidavit, detailed the service tax evasion case involving the company and the subsequent actions taken by the department. The Respondent highlighted that the liability of the company was contested, leading to pending appeal proceedings before the CESTAT, which prevented the finality necessary for reward payment under the scheme.

3. The judgment analyzed the guidelines for granting rewards under circulars issued by the Union Ministry of Finance. The circulars outlined the process, committees involved, and monetary limits for reward sanctioning, emphasizing the discretionary nature of reward payments and the absence of a vested right.

4. Legal principles governing the discretionary payment of rewards were discussed, emphasizing that rewards are ex gratia payments subject to specific criteria and the absolute discretion of the sanctioning authority. The judgment quoted Clause 5.1 of the policy to highlight the factors considered for determining reward eligibility.

5. The application of Clause 6.3 for advance or interim rewards was a focal point of the analysis. The clause specified conditions for granting rewards in cases involving duty evasion, emphasizing the need for voluntary payment of evaded duty, admission of liability, issuance of a show cause notice, and the likelihood of sustaining the action in appeal or revision.

6. The judgment addressed the discretionary authority vested in the sanctioning committee to determine reward eligibility based on the fulfillment of specified conditions. It clarified that the Court cannot preemptively assess the likelihood of appeal or revision outcomes, as that falls within the purview of the competent authority.

7. The Court deliberated on the issue of reward payment pending finality of liability determination, highlighting the need for conclusive decisions on liability before reward disbursement. It cited precedents to support the stance that rewards cannot be directed by the Court until legal proceedings reach a definitive conclusion.

8. Finally, the judgment granted the alternate request for expediting the disposal of the pending appeal before the CESTAT. The Court directed the CESTAT to prioritize the appeal for a swift resolution within six months, ensuring due process while facilitating the potential consideration of the Petitioner's reward request post-finality of the legal proceedings.

← Previous Next →