Promissory estoppel against the Government and restitution under Section 70 were applied where revenue benefited from non-gratuitous assistance.

A public announcement by the revenue offering rewards for information on concealed income was treated as a binding governmental representation where the claimant acted on it and supplied assistance in reliance on that assurance; promissory estoppel was applied against the Government despite the absence of a formal Article 299 contract. The material also states that compensation was recoverable under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act because the claimant acted lawfully, without gratuitous intent, and the Government received the benefit. Where assessment records and relevant officers were withheld, the facts as to tax recovery were treated as within the defendant's special knowledge, justifying adverse inference and proof of liability from the unrebutted material.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the newspaper announcements and subsequent conduct of the revenue constituted a promise or representation binding the Government under promissory estoppel and whether the plaintiff acted on it to his detriment; (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; (iii) whether the defendant's liability and the quantum of extra tax recovered were proved and whether adverse inference could be drawn from non-production of assessment records.

Issue (i): whether the newspaper announcements and subsequent conduct of the revenue constituted a promise or representation binding the Government under promissory estoppel and whether the plaintiff acted on it to his detriment.

Analysis: The announcements held out a reward to informers of concealed income, and the correspondence and oral evidence showed that the plaintiff furnished information and assistance in reliance on that assurance. The defendant's later stand that the reward was merely ex gratia was inconsistent with its earlier written acknowledgments and could not defeat the equitable doctrine. The Court applied the settled principle that promissory estoppel is enforceable against the Government and does not fail merely because a formal contract under Article 299 was absent.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff. The Government was bound by the promise represented in the announcements and related communications.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Analysis: The plaintiff had done the act lawfully, did not act gratuitously, and the defendant enjoyed the benefit of the information and assistance. The pleadings and notice substantially covered the ingredients of Section 70, and the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action. The amount of reward was also referable to the defendant's own announced scale of payment linked to the extra tax realised.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff. Compensation was recoverable under Section 70.

Issue (iii): whether the defendant's liability and the quantum of extra tax recovered were proved and whether adverse inference could be drawn from non-production of assessment records.

Analysis: The defendant withheld the assessment records and did not adduce evidence from officers who had knowledge of the recoveries. In those circumstances, the facts as to the amount realised were within the special knowledge of the defendant, and the Court invoked the statutory rule on burden of proof and the presumption arising from suppression of evidence. The unchallenged material justified the inference that substantial extra tax had been realised in the amount relied upon by the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff. Adverse inference was drawn against the defendant and liability was established.

Final Conclusion: The suit was maintainable and the plaintiff was entitled to monetary relief on the footing of both promissory estoppel and Section 70, with the defendant liable to pay the decretal amount together with interest and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A governmental promise publicly held out and acted upon can be enforced under promissory estoppel even without a formal contract, and where a party knowingly receives a non-gratuitous benefit, compensation is recoverable under Section 70; if the relevant facts lie especially within the defendant's knowledge, suppression of records permits an adverse inference.

---