2004 (4) TMI 592 - HC - Customs

Court orders immediate payment of Rs. 68,27,522 reward with interest. Timely disbursement crucial.

AMRIT LAL MEHTA Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF REVENUE INTELLEGENCE and INVESTIGATION and ORS

AMRIT LAL MEHTA Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF REVENUE INTELLEGENCE and INVESTIGATION and ORS - TMI Issues involved:1. Claim for a writ of mandamus for the grant of reward as per Reward Policy dated 30.03.1985.2. Interpretation of the Reward Policy regarding the timing of reward payment.3. Whether the Revenue has actually realized the amount from the party concerned.4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ in matters related to reward claims.Detailed analysis:1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to grant a reward of Rs. 68,27,522 with interest, based on providing information about smuggling activity. The petitioner highlighted the significance of the information provided and its role in collecting dues from the evading party.2. The respondent contended that the reward could only be granted after the conclusion of Appeal/Revision proceedings and actual realization of dues, as per the Reward Policy. An amendment required payment only upon the actual recovery of Central Excise duty/Customs duty/Penalty/Fine. The respondent argued that only a partial amount was disbursed as an advance, exceeding the entitlement of the petitioner.3. The court noted that the Revenue had adjusted Rs. 2.29 crores towards the recovery of dues from the party, indicating actual realization. The court emphasized that recovery need not be in cash and that the Revenue's duty was to pay the amount as per the rules, especially when the recovery was facilitated by the petitioner's information.4. The Union of India cited a Supreme Court judgment stating that the High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot determine reward claims, as it falls under the jurisdiction of department authorities. However, the Supreme Court also highlighted the need for detailed information in such claims and the absence of a right to claim a specific reward amount. The court differentiated the present case, where recovery was directly linked to the petitioner's information.5. Considering the admission that the recovery was a result of the petitioner's specific information, the court directed the respondent to pay the final reward amount within 15 days, as per the policy. Interest was to be paid at 15% per annum, failing which it would increase to 18% per annum, with the additional 3% borne by the responsible officer. The petitioner was awarded costs of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited within two weeks.