9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout duty payment. This critical information on substantial tax evasion directly facilitated the recovery of unpaid dues by the Respondents. Thus, asserting his entitlement to the full reward specified under the relevant guidelines, he seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the Respondents to disburse the claimed reward in its entirety. 2. Indeed, based on the information provided, a show cause notice was issued to the company and its officials, raising a demand of INR 23.89 crores. In response, the defaulting company availed the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and settled the matter with the Respondents by paying 50% of the duty demand, amounting to INR 11.94 crores. The Petitioner's entitlement to a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent his case for seeking full reward amount as per the established guidelines. To support these submissions, reliance is placed on M.K. Govindapillai v. Secretary, Central Board of Ex. & C. 1988 SCC OnLine Ker 614. 5. The Court has considered the Petitioner's arguments but finds them devoid of merit. It is a settled principle that rewards under informer schemes are ex-gratia payments and thus, lie within the discretion of the competent authority. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Padmanabhan (2003) 7 SCC 270., has emphasised that rewards of this nature cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as they are subject to the discretion of the authority designated by the guidelines. 6. The Petitioner has argued that the Respondent autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, the difficulty in securing the information, the extent to which the vigilance of the staff led to the seizure, detection of infringements/evasion of duty/service tax, special initiative, efforts and skills/ingenuity displayed leading to the recovery of Government dues during the course of investigation, admitting their liability by way of voluntary deposit and whether, besides the seizure of contraband goods/detection of infringements/evasion of duty/ service tax, the owners/organisers/financiers/racketeers as well as the carriers have been apprehended or not. The reward has to be case specific and not to be extended, in respect of other cases made elsewhere against other parties on the basis of a similar modus operandi. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the evasion network, thus enhancing the impact of the enforcement action. Together, these factors illustrate that the reward is not a fixed proportion of the recovery but instead a careful determination based on the informer's input, the level of risk, and the practical outcomes of their information in recovering government dues and capturing the key players involved. 9. In view of the above, on a holistic reading of the Guidelines, it emerges that the Petitioner's claim of reward for 20 percent is not a matter of right which can be sought by invoking this Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Padmanabhan (2003) 7 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the authorities must be exercised fairly and without undue reliance on hyper-technical details. However, we must note that in the later judgments, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Padmanabhan and Union of India & Ors. v. C. Krishna Reddy has held that rewards for informers are inherently discretionary and do not constitute enforceable rights. These judgments clarify that the competent authority retains complete discretion under the guidelines to evaluate each case individually, including the right to determine a reward below the maximum limit. Thus, while Govindapillai allowed judicial intervention in re-evaluating a reward based on perceived arbitrariness, the binding authoritative precedents of the Supreme Court affirm that re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is true, discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily. If facts exist to warrant exercise of discretion, discretion would have to be exercised. 32. In the instant case the petitioner has been given a reward of Rs. 35 lakhs. The appropriateness of the quantum of reward cannot be agitated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ application is accordingly, dismissed. 12. Applying the aforesaid precedents to the facts of the present case, it is observed that the Petitioner has already been awarded INR 25 lakhs by the Respondents. The appropriateness of this quantum of reward cannot be adjudicated by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, since it involves substantial determinations as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
