Court dismisses suit due to lack of standing for rewards under Income-tax Department guidelines; emphasizes discretionary nature.

The court dismissed the suit, ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing to claim rewards under the Income-tax Department's 1987 guidelines. The court emphasized that rewards are discretionary and not enforceable rights, leading to the rejection of claims for a percentage of tax collected and a specific amount. As the plaintiff had already received a reward at the Department's discretion, further claims were deemed unwarranted. The decision highlighted the non-statutory nature of the guidelines and the discretionary nature of reward payments, resulting in the dismissal of the suit with costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement to receive 10% of income tax collected based on information provided.
2. Claim for recovery of Rs. 14,25,000 from the Income-tax Department.
3. Entitlement to claim additional amount after receiving Rs. 75,000 as reward.
4. Locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit.
5. Payment of discretionary reward under the Reward Guidelines, 1987.

Analysis:
- Issue 4 questions the plaintiff's locus standi to file the suit, contending that reward grant is at the discretion of the authorities. The court examined the guidelines issued by the Income-tax Department in 1987, emphasizing that rewards are ex-gratia payments granted at the absolute discretion of the competent authority. The court ruled that the guidelines do not create an enforceable right for the informant to receive a reward, thus justifying the defendants' stance. Consequently, Issue 4 was answered affirmatively, questioning the plaintiff's standing to bring the suit.

- Issues 1, 2, and 5 were deemed irrelevant following the resolution of Issue 4. Issue 1 questioned the plaintiff's entitlement under the Income-tax Act to claim 10% of the collected amount, which was refuted based on the non-statutory nature of the guidelines. Issue 2, regarding the claim for Rs. 14,25,000, was dismissed as the grant of reward was discretionary. Issue 5, concerning the payment under the Reward Guidelines, 1987, was settled by confirming the plaintiff had received Rs. 75,000 as per the Department's discretion, rendering further claims unwarranted.

- Consequently, the suit was dismissed with costs due to the plaintiff's lack of enforceable rights under the guidelines and the discretionary nature of reward grants by the Income-tax Department. The court's decision was based on the absence of statutory provisions entitling the plaintiff to the claimed amounts, emphasizing the discretionary nature of reward payments and the non-enforceability of the guidelines in a court of law.

---