TaxTMI Login
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
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delhi HC rejects informer's claim for full 20% reward in duty evasion case, upholds discretionary nature of reward determination</h1> <h3>Mr. S.C. Gupta Versus Union Of India And Ors.</h3> Mr. S.C. Gupta Versus Union Of India And Ors. - 2024:DHC:8435 Issues:Claim for full reward under informer scheme based on disclosure of tax evasion information. Disbursement of reward below claimed amount. Violation of right to equal treatment and principles of natural justice. Interpretation of guidelines for grant of rewards to informers and government servants.Analysis:1. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the full reward specified under the informer scheme guidelines for disclosing information leading to the recovery of unpaid dues by the respondents. The petitioner argued that the reward amount disbursed was inadequate and contrary to the guidelines, specifically invoking Clause 5.1.1. of the Guidelines for grant of Reward to Informers and Government Servants. The petitioner contended that the decision to disburse only a fraction of the claimed reward violated his right to equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner emphasized the necessity of a personal hearing before the determination of the reward amount, citing principles of natural justice and reliance on legal precedents.2. The court examined the petitioner's arguments and found them devoid of merit. It reiterated that rewards under informer schemes are ex-gratia payments and subject to the discretion of the competent authority, as established by legal precedents. The court highlighted that the guidelines for informer rewards do not guarantee a fixed percentage but provide a discretionary framework for evaluating each case individually. The court emphasized that the informer's eligibility for a reward is contingent on various factors outlined in the guidelines, such as the specificity and accuracy of the information provided, the risk undertaken, and the extent of assistance in recovering government dues.3. The court referenced Clause 3.3.1 of the guidelines, which mandates a case-specific evaluation of the informer's role, the nature of assistance rendered, and the impact on the enforcement action. The court emphasized that the reward determination is not a routine entitlement but a comprehensive assessment based on the informer's contribution, level of risk, and practical outcomes of the information provided. The court clarified that rewards under informer schemes are discretionary and not enforceable rights, as affirmed by legal precedents.4. The court addressed the petitioner's reliance on the Kerala High Court judgment in Govindapillai v. Secretary, Central Board of Excise, noting that while judicial intervention was allowed in re-evaluating rewards in that case, the Supreme Court's authoritative precedents emphasized the discretionary nature of informer rewards. The court highlighted that the writ court's jurisdiction does not extend to quantifying contributions or adjudicating disputes regarding reward determinations, as it falls within the domain of the competent authority.5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had already been awarded a certain amount by the respondents. The court declined to interfere with the decision, noting that the discretion exercised by the respondents was not manifestly arbitrary. The court also rejected the petitioner's contention for a personal hearing, stating that the reward scheme being discretionary and ex-gratia did not necessitate procedural formalities associated with legally binding rights.
TaxTMI 