2015 (4) TMI 1267 - HC - Indian Laws

Release of Reward Money - Representation of the Government - It is the contention of the petitioner that, in accordance with the Scheme framed by the State Government, that the petitioner was entitled to an amount of ₹ 9,02,50,000/- as a reward on the basis of the huge recovery of taxes made by the Government on the basis of the information given by the petitioner - HELD THAT - If the citizens who acting on the representation made by the Government, give some valuable information and upon receipt of such information the tax recoveries are made and subsequently, the citizens are made to run from pillar to post for getting such reward, citizens would lose faith in the system and would not come forward to give the information. We have further observed that this would result in a loss to the Public Exchequer. Though in the present case, Mr. Sonpal submits that entire recovery is not on account of the information given by the petitioner, but has fairly admitted that part of the recovery is on the basis of the information given by the petitioner - If that be so, the Respondent-Authorities can very well determine as to what percentage of the total recovery is attributable to the information received from the petitioner. If that determination is made, a determination as to how much amount the petitioner is entitled to in accordance with the Scheme framed by the Government can be easily made. Stand over to 21st July, 2015.

Summary

Issues:
Prayer for a Writ directing payment of reward money as per Circular.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a Writ directing the Respondent to pay the reward money as per the Circular attached to the petition. The petitioner claimed to have informed the Respondent about substantial tax evasion by Public Sector oil companies, entitling them to a reward of Rs. 9,02,50,000 based on the tax recovery made by the Government. The Revenue sanctioned an interim payment of Rs. 75,000 to the petitioner. A Division Bench previously emphasized that if citizens are led to believe they will receive a reward for providing information leading to tax recovery, failure to honor this commitment would be detrimental to the Revenue and erode public trust in the system.

Analysis:
The Division Bench stressed the importance of honoring commitments made to citizens who provide valuable information leading to tax recoveries. Failure to pay promised rewards could discourage future informants and result in losses to the Public Exchequer. While the Revenue conceded that not the entire recovery was due to the petitioner's information, they acknowledged that a portion was attributable to it. The Court directed the Respondent to determine the percentage of recovery linked to the petitioner's information and calculate the corresponding reward amount as per the Government's Scheme.

Analysis:
The Court instructed the Respondent to evaluate the portion of the total recovery attributable to the petitioner's information to ascertain the rightful reward amount. The authorities were directed to make this determination and submit it in an affidavit by the next hearing date. The case was adjourned to 21st July 2015 for further proceedings.