ST - Informant seeking balance reward - writ jurisdiction is not remedy - petitioner has an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of bringing in civil suit in competent Civil Court: High Court
By TIOL News Service
MUMBAI, APR 02, 2016: THE petitioner seeks a writ from the High Court directing the Revenue department to pay a sum of Rs.46,37,000/- stated to be the balance reward.
The petitioner says that on the information provided by him, one of the assessees voluntarily deposited the service tax dues of 2.59 crores and, therefore, in view of the content of the "reward circulars", he is entitled to reward of a sum of Rs.51,80,000/-. The petitioner also relies on the decision cited as 2015-TIOL-1209-HC-MUM-CUS .
The Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, in the affidavit in reply, admits that information was provided in relation to the media company who had allegedly evaded tax. Furthermore, the Reward Committee had sanctioned a final reward of Rs.5.50lacs, which is in tune with the information about evasion of tax and on investigation, according to the deponent, only a sum of Rs.9.23lacs was found short paid/recovered.
In his rejoinder, the petitioner asserted that it is not his business to give specific figures or details of the evasion;that he has to give information with regard to the evasion of service tax; that if that information, as provided, is true and correct and based on that recoveries are effected, then, the reward circular mandates computation of the sum based on the quantum thereof and not how the authorities arrive at any figures and attributable to the information; that it is not possible for the authorities to bifurcate the information and attribute to the petitioner only that part of it, which results in actual recoveries; that the Department, cannot cover up its lapses in recovery of taxes avoided and evaded by assessees and thereafter foist upon the petitioner the liability to disclose the exact amount, which is due and payable, according to him.
The High Court observed -
+ It will not be possible for this court to decide the disputed question of fact.
+ The reward disbursed to the petitioner till date is only an advance amount and not the final sum.
+ The respondents are misleading this court and they ought to faithfully disclose that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.51.87 lacs.
+ The petitioner's information led to recovery of tax along with interest worth Rs.2.59crores. The evaded tax was paid by the assessee voluntarily under the self-assessment scheme and investigators had very little role in the recovery, which alone was enough to qualify and consider the petitioner eligible for full reward at the rate of 20%.
+ Court cannot undertake an elaborate exercise of arriving at the figures of the reward. It is not just on affidavits that the figures can be determined and correctly. The affidavit sets out versions of both sides. Which version is the correct one would have to be determined in appropriate proceedings.
+ If the petitioner claims the sum under the head "balance reward", then, whether that balance, as computed by the petitioner, is accurate or that there is no balance are matters which must be resolved by a competent Civil Court. It is not as if the petitioner is remediless.
Concluding that the writ jurisdiction is not a remedy for the petitioner, the petition was dismissed. The High Court observed that the petitioner hadan alternate and equally efficacious remedy of bringing in a civil suit in a competent Civil Court.
(See 2016-TIOL-645-HC-MUM-ST)
