IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15688 of 2008(P)
1. M.K.SURENDRAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, AGED 42 YRS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
3. DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX VIGILANCE
4. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT
5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.C.KHALID
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :08/06/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 15688 of 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 8th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be a recognized “informer” to the Income
Tax authorities, on whose information, the departmental authorities
conducted a raid and collected incriminating documents from the
business premises and residence of the concerned evader of Income
Tax. The case of the petitioner is that, the tax recovery resulted
because of the contribution of the petitioner being of Rs. 3.6 crores as
reward, the petitioner is entitled to have 10 % of the said amount i.e. 36
lakhs as reward, in tune with the relevant guidelines (Guidelines for
Grant of Reward for Informants, issued by the Central Board of Direct
Taxes in 1993) whereas the petitioner was given only 2.75 lakhs.
2. In response to Ext.P12 lawyers’ notice, the first respondent
sent Ext.P13 reply, stating that granting of the benefit is in tune with the
relevant ‘guidelines’ and to the extent the petitioner is actually entitled
to have the benefit. It was also stated in Ext.P13 that, if the petitioner is
aggrieved in any manner, he could very well approach the 4th
respondent/appellate authority in this regard. Petitioner has
approached this Court, challenging the inaction on the part of the 4th
respondent, despite preferring Ext.P14 appeal in this regard.
3. A statement has been filed from the part of the first respondent
seeking to sustain the stand taken by the department, also pointing out
WP (C) No. 15688 of 2008
: 2 :
in paragraph 11 that, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has already
been considered and disposed of, and that the petitioner was
conveyed to the petitioner through Ext.R1(A) dated 1.8.2007. A copy of
the minutes of the Committee dated 19.9.2006 is also produced and
marked as Ext.R1(B). It is contended that the petitioner does not have
any legal right to claim the reward as a matter of right, as per the law
declared by Apex Court, as well as by this Court on the point.
4. It is true that the legal position as above cannot be in dispute
any further. But the point involved is whether Ext.P14 appeal preferred
by the petitioner has been considered and disposed of in accordance
with the ‘guidelines’ as offered and stipulated vide Ext.P13 reply.
5. Ext. R1(A) intimation conveyed to the petitioner shows that it
was only with reference to the letter dated 29.6.2007 of the 4th
respondent; whereas Ext.R1(B) attached along with it, is dated
19.6.2006. That apart, Ext.R1(B) shows that, it is in respect of the
proceedings granting “final award” pursuant to the proposal submitted
by the Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Kochi and not with reference to
Ext.P14 appeal preferred by the petitioner. Besides this, no opportunity
of hearing was given to the petitioner before finalizing Ext.P14.
6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, Ext.P14 has
to be reconsidered by the fourth respondent with reference to the
WP (C) No. 15688 of 2008
: 3 :
relevant ‘guidelines’ and also with regard to the actual facts and figures.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing 4th respondent to
reconsider Ext.P14 appeal preferred by the petitioner, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
Disposed of as above.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd