TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n provided by the Petitioner to the State Government and its Sales Tax Department from 1992 onwards, based upon which, the sale tax recoveries were made from the tax evaders. This reward is claimed by relying upon the circular/resolution dated 01 January 1976 (Exhibit A at pages 14 to 19 of the paper book). 4. The record bears out that the Petitioner, since 1992, has been submitting information to the Sales Tax Department regarding tax evasion and evaders. In 1996 (see letter dated August 15, 1996), the Petitioner revealed the connection between Public Sector Oil Companies and certain Fisherman Co-operative Societies, exposing the modus operandi employed, which resulted in widespread tax evasion. Despite the Petitioner providing information that at least prima facie indicated tax evasion or even tax fraud, no action was taken. As a result, the Petitioner filed Public Interest Litigation No.139 of 2006, requesting action on his complaints. 5. By order dated 21 November 2007, this PIL was disposed of after taking cognizance of the Affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. EOW, Mumbai and the Affidavit on behalf of the Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the Affidavit, a reference is made to the Affidavit in Reply dated 26 March 2014, in which the Petitioner's contention that an amount of Rs. 361 crores was recovered due to the information supplied by the Petitioner was denied. That Affidavit, however, stated that the correct figure in respect of the concerned assesses, including tax and interest, was shown as Rs. 55.98 crores as total dues. However, actual recovery was pending, and at various stages of appeals, part payments were fixed by the Appellate Authority, as well as several payments made by the assesses under protest. In short, the contention was that recoveries could not be considered finalised until the disposal of the Appeals and other proceedings concerning such recoveries. 11. The Affidavit dated 21 September 2015 also states that the Government Circular/Resolution dated 1 January 1976, relied upon by the Petitioner, is superseded by the Government Resolution dated 5 June 2007. However, it is acknowledged that, as stated in paragraph 2.3 of the Resolution dated 5 June 2007, the same shall apply to all pending applications for a reward. Furthermore, a reference is made to paragraph 2.1 of the Resolution dated 05 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed. 14. Para-8 of the Affidavit dated 21 September 2015, which we have transcribed above, indicates that by communication dated 07 September 2015, a certain amount payable to the Petitioner as a reward was determined. However, since the said amount exceeded Rs. 5 lakhs, the sanction of the State Government was required for its payment. 15. On 26 August 2014, this Court (Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari and A.K. Menon, JJ), after perusing Affidavits filed until then, required the learned AGP to obtain instructions from the Respondents about the requisite steps to recover the outstanding dues so that the quantum of reward to the Petitioner would be determined and paid. This is because, on the one hand, the Respondents were not paying the reward amount on the grounds that the revenue had not been recovered, and on the other hand, the authorities were taking no steps to recover the revenue from the evaders. 16. On 28 October 2014, this Court (Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari and A.A. Sayed, JJ) made another order requiring the Respondents to refrain from not just tendering charts across the Bar but filing Affidavits to support and substantiate such figures. The Commissioner of Sales Tax or the J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 April 2015, this Court [Coram: B.R. Gavai, as his lordship then was, and A.S. Gadkari, JJ) made the following order:- "The petitioner has approached this Court praying for a Writ directing the Respondent to pay the reward money to the petitioner in accordance with the Circular, which is annexed to the petition. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a vigilant citizen and as such had brought to the notice of the Respondent-Authority, the huge tax evasion by various Public Sector oil companies. It is the contention of the petitioner that, in accordance with the Scheme framed by the State Government, that the petitioner was entitled to an amount of Rs. 9,02,50,000/- as a reward on the basis of the huge recovery of taxes made by the Government on the basis of the information given by the petitioner. 3. It appears that various orders have been passed by this Court from time to time. Shri Sonpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has placed an order dated 10th April, 2015 by which the State Government has sanctioned to pay an amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the petitioner as an interim measure. 4. A Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Petition. Ms. Shaila A, Joint Commissioner of State Tax (INV-B), filed a very vague Affidavit on 21 September 2018 claiming compliance. 23. Despite all the above orders, no payment was made to the Petitioner. This Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12 July 2024, but it was later duly restored. 24. On 20 December 2024, after taking cognisance of the communication dated 04 October 2024, which Mr. Takke produced, the learned AGP, this Bench made the following order:- "1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Mr Takke, learned AGP places on record the communication dated 4 October 2024 which suggests that the Petitioner is held eligible and admissible to reward amount of Rs 19,44,802/-. He points out that since the reward amount exceeds Rs 5 Lakhs, the competent authority for sanction is the government. He states that within a reasonable time, the government will decide the issue. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that this reward amount concerns only one of the oil companies. He also points out the additional reward is due to the Petitioner. 4. At this stage, we are not deciding or disposing of the matter finally. All such issues can therefore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Darshan Singh Parmar Reference : Bombay High Court Order dated 28.04.2015 in case of Writ Petition 2283 of 2013. Sir, In the Writ Petition filed by Mr. Darshan Singh Parmar for reward due to the information of tax evasion supplied by him, Hon'ble High Court has directed to determine as to how much amount the petitioner is entitled to in accordance with the Scheme famed by the Government. The Department of Sales Tax had acted on the information given by the petitioner and on the basis of the assessment orders passed by the Department additional revenue attributed to information given by him is to the tune of Rs. 22,86,14,128/-. Calculation of the tax recovery is based on the information given by Mr. Darshan Singh Parmar in his complaint about the transactions between M/s Indian Oil Corporation and some Machhimar societies named in the complaint. The recovery of pending dues has been done as per Amnesty scheme 2019, and dues of Rs. 12,93,07,064/- have been recovered irrevocably. The reward is calculated as directed by the Court and can be awarded now as the dues have been recovered irrevocably. Calculation of the reward is done as per GR No. STA-2004/CR-103/ Taxation-2 Date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rought to book and taxes recovered, should not be made to run from pillar to post or otherwise suffer frustration. 29. At least after the determination reflected in the communication dated 4 October 2024 and the numerous orders made in this Petition, we expected immediate sanction for the release of the determined amount to the Petitioner. Instead of granting sanction, the Government's Affidavit points out that the Petitioner had not provided information in the prescribed Form-A and therefore, no reward amount was payable. Factually, the information was provided in Form-A, and this form is also appended to the Petition. Mr. Shanmugarajan S., Joint Commissioner of State Tax, without bothering to read the Petition or take cognisance of its annexures, had filed an Affidavit only to unfairly deny the petitioner's reward amount of Rs. 19,44,802/-, as determined by the officials based on the records. 30. Apart from the above glaring error, we note that from 2013 onwards, the defence that information was not supplied in the prescribed Form-A was never raised. The only defences, as noted above, were that no reward is payable unless the revenue is irrevocably realised. It was pointed out ....