Disputed reward claim petition dismissed, court suggests civil suit for resolution.

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandamus for payment of a balance reward claimed by the petitioner, who disputed the reward amount determined by the Reward Committee. The court found the dispute over reward computation and the petitioner's refusal to provide specific figures of evasion beyond its writ jurisdiction. It suggested pursuing the matter through a civil suit for resolution, emphasizing the complexity of factual considerations. The court noted the availability of an alternate remedy and dismissed the petition due to the disputed nature of the claim and the significant time lapse since the initial payment date.

---

---

Issues:
Petition for writ of mandamus for payment of balance reward claimed by petitioner based on information provided regarding tax evasion. Dispute over reward amount computation. Discrepancy between petitioner's claim of reward and amount sanctioned by Reward Committee. Disagreement on whether writ jurisdiction is appropriate for resolving factual disputes.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus or direction for the respondents to pay a balance reward of Rs. 46,37,000, claiming entitlement based on information provided leading to recovery of service tax dues by a tax defaulter. The petitioner relied on circulars outlining reward schemes and cited a Division Bench judgment to support the claim. However, the respondents, through an affidavit, disclosed that a Reward Committee had examined the information provided and sanctioned a reward of Rs. 5.50 lacs, based on the tax evasion amount recovered. The petitioner contested this, arguing that the reward amount was unilaterally determined below the prescribed limit and sought the balance amount of Rs. 51,80,000. The court noted the dispute over reward computation and the petitioner's refusal to provide specific figures of evasion, asserting that the authorities should calculate the reward based on the total evasion amount, not just the recoveries attributable to the information provided.

Upon reviewing the petition, reply affidavit, and rejoinder, the court found it unable to decide the disputed factual question regarding the reward amount. The petitioner claimed that the reward received was only an advance amount and disputed the computation, asserting eligibility for a higher sum. The court observed that determining the accurate reward amount involved complex factual considerations beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the petitioner could pursue the matter through a civil suit for resolution. The court distinguished a previous Division Bench judgment, stating it was not applicable due to factual distinctions. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternate and equally efficacious remedy through a civil suit, especially considering the disputed issue of claiming the balance reward after a significant lapse of time from the initial payment date.

---