AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The writ petitioner seeks for a relief to set aside the order dated 06.06.2003 and for a consequential direction to pay a
sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- Lakhs in view of the information granted by him which allegedly led to the seizure of Rs. 60,00,000/- and 10 Kgs of gold
from a gold merchant, Theni, on 13.10.2005.
By the impugned notice, the petitioner informed that since the matter related to seizure of cash and gold jewellery was pending before the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT and only after the conclusion of the proceedings, further steps shall be taken.
The writ petition was admitted on 15.07.2005. Pursuant to the notice, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 24.10.2005. It
is seen from the counter affidavit that the jewelleries seized from the gold merchant was valued at Rs. 45,12,514/- and the value of the silver was
Rs. 6,60,000/- and not as contended by the petitioner. It was also stated that the payment of any reward amount is governed by the guidelines
issued by Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) known as ""Grant of award to an Informant 1995"", dated 30.11.1990. As per the said guidelines,
grant of reward amount is not based on a matter of right and the informant is bound by the decision of the competent authority. The amount also
will be paid on the undertaking that he had agreed to receive the award with no right to question the decision of the competent authority. It is also
stated that the reward can be pertained the extra taxes levied or realised which are directly attributable to the information supplied.
In the present case, the petitioner was paid Rs. 15,000/- on 21.11.1995 and a further sum of Rs. 35,000/- on 03.04.1997. It was also stated
that since the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had not decided the issue finally and he was suitably replied. It was also stated that till March, 2005,
the appeal before the ITAT was still pending. But, however, the ITO, Theni, had passed an order dated 08.03.2005 and therefore, it was possible
for the department to ascertain whether any extra levy has been made so that any further payment to be given to the petitioner. The declaration to
be signed by an informant has been furnished along with guidelines framed by the CBDT. It shows that the petitioner had bound himself by a similar
undertaking signed on 05.10.1995. The declaration prescribed reads as follows:
Declaration
I declare that
(a) I am aware that the information or document furnished by me do not ipso facto confer on me a right to any reward, and that I would be sound
by any decision and authority competent to grant rewards may take.
(b) I am aware that the extent of the reward depends on the precision of the information and usefulness of the documents furnished by me.
(c) I am aware that the reward would pertain only to as much of the extra taxes levid/realised as are directly attributable to the information supplied
by me.
(d) the provisions of Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code have been read by me or explained to me and I am aware that if the information
furnished by me is found to be false, I would be liable to prosecution.
(e) I accept that the Government is under no obligation to enter into any correspondence regarding the details of additions made and taxes realised
as a result of my information.
(f) I accept that payment of reward is ex-gratia in the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant reward and I have no right to dispute
the correctness of the decision in any court of law.
(g) In the event of my death before the rewards i paid to me, it may be paid to....
Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition claiming certain extra amounts, as if there was an enforceable right in his
favour.
In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment rendered in a Suit filed in the Bombay High court reported in (2000) 242 ITR 656 in
Motilal Kishangopal Thanvi v. Union of India and Ors.. The following passage found at page No: 658 may be usefully extracted below:
...The guidelines being in the nature of executive instructions, they are not per se enforceable by the Court. However, they can be treated as an
agreement between the Department and the person who is giving the information. Guideline No. 6 of these guidelines, in categorical terms, lays
down that the payment of rewards is an ex-gratia payment and it is in the absolute discretion of the competent authority. It clearly means that the
guideline does not create a right in the informant to receive any reward from the Department. Grant of reward, if any, is in the absolute discretion of
the Department. From guideline No. 6, it is clear that no right to receive any reward can be enforced by any court of law. In my opinion, therefore,
the defendants are justified in saying that the plaintiff has no locus to file this suit in the sense that he does not have any right which can be enforced
by a decree of this Court. Issue No. 4 is therefore, answered in the affirmative.
Similarly, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court while dealing with the case of V.K. Agrawal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others had
observed as follows;:
The petitioner, V.K. Agrawal, apparently has not received the full monetary benefits of the price money in facilitating intelligence reports on
assessees with the Income Tax Department. It is his claim and contention that whatever had been discovered on the basis of the reports supplied
by him and became the subject-matter of raids by the Income Tax Department, he is entitled to a percentage of the amounts so realised by the
Department. This is the contention of the petitioner.
Plainly the issue before the Court is whether a writ may issue on such a petition.
There is no issue before the court that the law has not provided whether under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or the rules framed thereunder that there
is any statutory liability on behalf of the Department, that a percentage of the monetary value of the assets discovered will be delivered to the
informer. The petitioner''s position is no better than an informer to the Ministry of Finance and is analogous to an informer to police agencies.
The petitioner ran the risk of collecting intelligence and his status was no better than that of a snooper praying and picking up information and
delivering it to the Income Tax Department for the purposes of receiving a prize.
The Court has reservations whether such arrangements may be a contract enforceable by a Court of Law. On this, the Court also relies on a
decision in the case of Ram Baran Misra v. Union of India [1998] 234 ITR 434.
Thus, no writ is being issued in this petition. Dismissed.
Therefore, in the light of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and devoid of merits and will stand dismissed.
Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.