Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Court stresses honoring commitments for tax info leading to recoveries, directs Revenue to calculate reward amount.</h1> <h3>Darshan Singh Parmar Versus The Union of India & Ors.</h3> Darshan Singh Parmar Versus The Union of India & Ors. - TMI 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.