Bombay High Court
Darshan Singh Parmar vs Union Of India And 4 Ors on 24 June, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
Digitally signed
2025:BHC-OS:9293-DB
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
CHANDAN Date:
2025.06.24
15:12:59 +0530
lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2013
Darshan Singh Parmar,
Aged about 64 years,
Indian Inhabitant, Residing at Old
Barrack T50, Room No.216,
Chembur Camp, Mumbai- 400076 ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India
Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate,
Mumbai - 400032
2. The State of Maharashtra
through Government Pleader,
High Court (O.S.) Mumbai.
3. The Commissioner of Sales Tax
504, Vikrikar Bhavan, Mazgaon,
Mumbai 400010
4. The Director of Central Bureau of
Investigation Department,
Economic Offences Wing,
Kitab Mahal, 3rd floor, D.N. Road,
Mumbai-400001
5. The Director of Income Tax
(Vigilance)
Kitab Mahal, D.N. Road, Mumbai
400001. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 20
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.13522 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2013
Darshan Singh Parmar, Applicant
... (Org.Petitioner)
In the matter between:
Darshan Singh Parmar, ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & ors. ... Respondents.
______________________________________________________
Mr D. S. Sakhalkar with Mr. Himanshu Thakur i/b Suresh
Patil, for Petitioner.
Ms Neeta V. Masurkar, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4.
Mr Himanshu Takke, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10 June 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24 June 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per M. S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The rule was issued in this Petition on 13 October 2015.
Accordingly, with the consent of and at the request of learned
counsel for the parties, this Petition was heard for final
disposal.
Page 2 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
3. The Petitioner, who was 64 years old at the time of
institution of this Petition in 2013, seeks an appropriate writ
to direct the Respondents to reward the Petitioner for valuable
information 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. These Affidavits provided details of the action
taken, including arrest and filing of a charge sheet. This order
Page 3 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
granted liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his remedy of
seeking rewards because it was the Petitioner’s case that the
tax evaders were booked and the taxes may have been
recovered from them based upon the Petitioner’s complaints.
6. The Petitioner, therefore, pursued the matter with the
Respondents. However, this pursuit did not meet with much
success, mainly because the Respondents were not disclosing
full details about the action initiated and the recoveries made
based on the Petitioner’s complaints. The Petitioner was
always given vague and nonspecific replies. The Petitioner
was informed that the issue of recoveries is the subject matter
of appeals, and the Department was pursuing the matter. The
Petitioner was given the impression that once the appeals are
disposed of, necessary recoveries would be made and the
Petitioner’s claim for reward considered. However, no proper
information was being supplied to the Petitioner.
7. The Petitioner then applied for information under the
Right to Information Act. The Petitioner claims that, based on
the information provided, substantial tax recoveries were
made following the Petitioner’s complaints. Nonetheless, for
no apparent reason, the rewards were not being paid to the
Petitioner.
8. Aggrieved by the non-payment of reward even though
the circular dated 01 January 1976 required such payment,
the Petitioner has instituted the present Petition seeking the
following substantive reliefs: –
Page 4 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
“(a) This Hon’ble court under article 226 of the
Constitution of India be pleased issue writ of certiorari,
mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing
Respondents to pay reward money to the Petitioner in
accordance with the circular annexed at Ex “A” to the
Petition.
(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent
No.2 & 3 to furnish the particulars of the appeals
preferred by the assesses before the various authorities
and copies thereof.”
9. Several affidavits have been filed by the Respondents in
this Petition. An Affidavit was also filed by Swati S Palkar,
Under Secretary, Finance Department, Government of
Maharashtra, in PIL Writ Petition No.153 of 2006.
10. Mr. Kishore Raje Nimbalkar, Joint Commissioner of Sales
Tax, Investigation “B”, filed an Affidavit in this Petition on 21
September 2015. 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.
Page 5 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
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 June 2007,
in which it is provided that the reward would be payable only
when the revenue is realized irrevocably.
12. Para-8 of the Joint Commissioner’s Affidavit dated 21
September 2015 is relevant and the same is therefore
transcribed below for the convenience of reference:-
“8. I say that at this stage part of the recovery is
pending due to pendency of first or second appeals as
also where recovery is complete in case of disposal of
second appeals, reference is pending before this
Honourable Court. If reference is allowed in favour of
the assesse in final hearing the consequential order of
the Tribunal may result in refund of recovery already
enforced or complied. In other words the amount
recovered, due to pendency of appeals and reference
cannot be said to be irrevocably recovered. Hence
amount recoverable irrespective of actual recovery is
determined by this Department and provisional
amount of entitlement in the event of recovery
reaching finality by conclusion of all proceedings is
determined as per communication dt. 07-09-2015 by
the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State to
the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) Maharashtra
State, Mantralaya Mumbai. A copy of communication
dt. 07-09-2015 by the Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Maharashtra State to the Additional Chief Secretary
Maharashtra State is annexed hereto and marked
Exhibit II. I say that as on the day of finalization of
this Affidavit, the matter is pending approval of StatePage 6 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCXGovernment since reward above Rs. 5 lacs requires
sanction of the State Government.”
13. According to the Affidavit dated 21 September 2015, the
Respondents appear to have presented three primary
defenses. The first defense contests the Petitioner’s claim of
recovering Rs . 361 crores, stating the actual amount was
approximately Rs . 55.98 crore. The second defense argues
that the Government Circular/Resolution dated 01 January
1976 has been superseded by the more recent Government
Resolution dated 05 June 2007, although it was clarified that
this newer resolution applies only to pending reward
applications. The third and primary defence asserts that the
reward is due only after the revenue is permanently realised,
implying that no reward should be paid while any appeals or
recovery proceedings are ongoing. Aside from these three
points, no other defenses concerning procedural compliance
or similar issues were raised.
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
Page 7 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
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 Joint Commissioner was directed to file an Affidavit
regarding the steps to recover the dues to the Government.
The Court noted that if the dues to the Government were to
the tune of crores of rupees, then the Affidavit should explain
why no steps were taken for the recoveries. The Affidavit was
also directed to disclose the steps the State proposes to take
against erring officials in the Department.
17. The Affidavit filed by Mr. Tukaram Mundhe, the Joint
Commissioner of Sales Tax, was taken on record by the order
dated 11 November 2014. In the context of this Affidavit, this
Court (Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari and A.A.Sayed, JJ) made a
detailed order on 18 November 2014. In this order, this Court
noted the statement of the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax
that the Department will endeavour to recover the entire
Page 8 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
amount on or before 31 March 2015 or even earlier. This
assurance was accepted as an undertaking to this Court.
18. On 20 January 2015, this Court (Coram:
S.C.Dharmadhikari and S.P.Deshmukh, JJ) made the following
order :-
“1. To enable the petitioner’s Advocate to peruse
the affidavit tendered today which has been served in
Court itself, stand over to 4th February, 2015.
2. If the Revenue does not consider this as
adversarial litigation but is seeking assistance of the
petitioner in unearthing the fraud perpetrated on it by
not paying the legitimate taxes and on time, then, the
least that we would expect from them till this Court
passes further orders is that if the petitioner is eligible
to seek a reward or at least a partial remuneration for
his efforts undertaken earlier and now the same be
released.
3. Copy of this order be provided to Mr. Sonpal.”
19. On 04 February 2015, this Court (Coram:
S.C.Dharmadhikari and N.W.Sambre, JJ) passed the following
order :-
“Mr Sonpal assures the Court after taking instructions
from the Commissioner that the file containing the
request of the petitioner for a reward will be
processed and a decision will be taken thereon as
expeditiously as possible and on or before 6th April,
2015. List on 17th April, 2015.”
20. Despite all the above orders, this Court found that the
Respondents were neither serious about recovering the dues
from the tax evaders nor informing the Court or determining
the reward amount payable to the Petitioner in terms of the
Government Circular/Resolution.
Page 9 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
21. Therefore, on 28 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 10 th 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
Bench (to which one of us i.e. B.R.Gavai, J. is a
party) recently had an occasion to consider similar
issue in Public Interest Litigation No. 99 of 2014
(Lalan Kishor Singh vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr)
decided on 9.3.2015. We have categorically
observed that if the Department initially gives an
impression to the citizens that upon receipt of the
information from them, tax recovery is made, then
in that event, a part of that recovery would be paid
to such citizen as a reward and subsequently does
not abide by the representation and pay the amount
of reward, such a conduct would be against the
interest of Revenue itself.
5. We had categorically observed that if the
citizens who acting on the representation made by
the Government, give some valuable information
and upon receipt of such information the taxPage 10 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCXrecoveries are made and subsequently, the citizens
are made to run from pillar to post for getting such
reward, citizens would lose faith in the system and
would not come forward to give the information.
We have further observed that this would result in a
loss to the Public Exchequer.
6. Though in the present case, Mr. Sonpal
submits that entire recovery is not on account of the
information given by the petitioner, but has fairly
admitted that part of the recovery is on the basis of
the information given by the petitioner.
7. If that be so, the Respondent-Authorities can
very well determine as to what percentage of the
total recovery is attributable to the information
received from the petitioner. If that determination is
made, a determination as to how much amount the
petitioner is entitled to in accordance with the
Scheme framed by the Government can be easily
made.
8. We, therefore, direct the Respondent-
Authorities to do the determination as directed
hereinabove and place the same on affidavit before
this Court by the next date.
Stand over to 21st July, 2015.”
22. The rule was issued in this Petition on 13 October 2015.
This Court clarified that if any ad-hoc or provisional
determination has been made or any amount fixed by the
Respondent, the same would be paid over to the Petitioner,
who shall accept it under protest and without prejudice to his
rights and contentions in the Petition. In the meantime, the
Petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 28 of 2018, alleging
non-compliance with the orders issued by this Court from
time to time in this Petition. Ms. Shaila A, Joint Commissioner
of State Tax (INV-B), filed a very vague Affidavit on 21
September 2018 claiming compliance.
Page 11 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
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 be
raised on the next date.
5. For the present, we are interested in ensuring
that at least the admitted amounts are paid to the
Petitioner at the earliest.
6. Therefore, we list this matter on 7 February 2025
for directions. We expect that by end of January at
least, necessary orders and payments are made to the
Petitioner.
25. In the context of this Court’s order dated 20 December
2024 and the communication dated 04 October 2024, Mr.
Shanmugarajan S., Joint Commissioner of State Tax
(Investigation-B), Mumbai, has filed an Affidavit on 21 March
Page 12 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
2025. After all these years, the defence now taken is that the
Petitioner, while furnishing information about tax evaders,
had not submitted a statement in Form-A. On this ground, it
was suggested that no reward would be payable to the
Petitioner, even though, the quantum of such reward was
reflected in the communication dated 04 October 2024.
26. From the various Affidavits filed in this Petition, we are
more than satisfied that the Respondents do not wish to
comply with their own Circular/Resolution regarding the
payment of reward to the Petitioner. Even after accepting the
Respondents’ contentions that the revenue must be
irrevocably realised, some reward is still due and payable to
the Petitioner. The Respondents are aware of this, and
therefore, considerable time was wasted by not precisely
informing the Court of the number of recoveries made
irrevocably. In the communications dated 7 September 2015
and 4 October 2024, a determination was made, as a result of
which, the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax decided that an
amount of Rs. 19,44,802/- was payable as a reward to the
Petitioner. However, this communication, issued with the
appropriate approval of the Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Maharashtra, stated that since the reward amount exceeds Rs.
5 lakhs, Government sanction was required. As no decision
was taken on the Government sanction, we were compelled to
issue the order dated 20 December 2024.
Page 13 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
27. The communication dated 04 October 2024 reads as
follows:
Office of the
Joint Commissioner of State Tax,
Investigation Branch-B Mumbai.
3rd Floor, ‘C’ Wing, Old Bldg.,
GST Bhavan, Mazgaon,
Mumbai – 400 010.
To,
The Additional Chief Secretary,
Finance Department,
Mantralay, Mumbai.
No. JC/Inv-B/2024-25/Shri. Parmar/Reward/B-50,
Mumbai. Date 04/10/2024.
Subject : Reward calculation of Mr. 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 05.06.2007. The relevant
paras of the GR dated 05.06.2007 for reward read as below:
Page 14 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
Sr. Amount of additional Maximum Quantum of
No tax realised reward to the informant
1 Upto Rs. 20 lakh 10% of the additional tax
recovered
2 Exceeds Rs. 20 lakh Rs. 2 lakh + 5% of additional
upto Rs.1 crore tax realised above Rs. 20
lakh.
3 Exceeds Rs. 1 crore Rs. 6 lakh + 2% of additional
upto Rs.10 crore tax recovered over Rs. 1 crore
4 Exceeds Rs. 10 crore Rs. 24 lakhs + 1% of
additional tax recovered over
Rs. 10 crore, subject to a
maximum of Rs. 50 lakh.
Sr. Accuracy of information Percentages of total
No computed reward admissible
to the informant
1 Very accurate and 100%
comprehensive
2 Largely correct and 75%
fairly comprehensive
3 Generally correct but 50%
not so comprehensive
Based on the tax recovery computation of quantum of reward
eligible and admissible to the informant is as below :
(In Rs.)
Tax demand raised attributable to 25,86,14,128
the information given by the
petitioner
Tax recovery under Amnesty 12,93,07,064/-
Scheme-2019
Slab Upto Rs. 10 Cr. 24,00,000/-
Additional tax exceeding Rs. 10Cr. 2,93,070/-
is 2,93,07,064/- @ 1%
Total admissible reward 26,93,070/-
75% of total computed reward 20,19,802/-
admissible to the informant.
Page 15 of 20 ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2025 22:19:24 ::: WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX (-) Interim Reward already 75,000/- granted on 07.05.2015 Balance amount of reward 19,44,802/- admissible
As the amount of the reward exceeds Rs. 5 lakh, the
competent authority to sanction the reward is the
Government. Therefore the quantification of the award be
approved so that the same can be granted to the informer.
(With prior approval of Hon. Commissioner of State Tax,
Maharashtra)
Regards,(Vanmathi C.)
Joint Commissioner of State Tax,
Investigation Branch-B, Mumbai.
28. The Petitioner claims that a much larger amount is
payable to him towards a reward. At this stage, based on the
scant material placed on record by the parties, it would not be
possible for us to determine this amount in this Petition.
However, we cannot appreciate the difficulties the
Respondents are imposing on the Petitioner in paying the
amounts that they have themselves determined to be due and
payable to the Petitioner. Once the Government formulates a
reward scheme, it should be operated fairly and squarely. The
informers, based on whose information, tax evaders are
brought 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
Page 16 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
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 that the
recoveries were subject matters of appeals etc, and until all
these were disposed of, no reward could be paid. After these
issues were sorted out and even the reward amount was
determined, this latest defence has been raised without
verifying the records or factual position.
31. According to the Petitioner, the reward amount, as
determined by the Respondents, is too low, and a significantly
higher sum is owed and payable. Currently, we are unable to
establish the exact amount of the reward due to the Petitioner.
Page 17 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
The Respondents have consistently been uncooperative in
providing the necessary details, solely to delay the payment
indefinitely. In any case, the officers of the Respondents, of the
rank of Joint Commissioner and with the approval of the
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra, have decided that
Rs.19,44,802/- is presently payable to the Petitioner as a
reward. This amount should have been paid to the Petitioner
immediately. There is no basis for the Respondents to now
retract and refuse payment of even this amount, which has
been determined by them. This sum accounts for some modest
amounts already paid to the Petitioner.
32. Therefore, we direct the Respondents to pay Rs.
19,44,802/- to the Petitioner within six weeks from the date
this order is uploaded. If the payment is not made within this
period, it will accrue interest at 8% per annum. The
Respondents must pay this interest, but it should be recovered
from the officers responsible for the delay. The Finance
Secretary, after paying the interest, if necessary, must conduct
an inquiry to identify the officers responsible and recover the
interest from them. This is to ensure that taxpayers are not
burdened with the delay caused by officers’ lethargy in
complying with the Court’s orders.
33. The Sales Tax Commissioner and the Finance Secretary,
State of Maharashtra, must, within six months from today,
determine the precise amount of rewards payable to the
Petitioner and, upon such determination, pay the reward
Page 18 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
amount to the Petitioner within two months. The Sales Tax
Commissioner and the Finance Secretary must supply the
Petitioner with full particulars of the recoveries made, the
status of pending appeals, etc., and hear the Petitioner, and
consider all the documents produced by him. The Sales Tax
Commissioner and the Finance Secretary must also examine
all records, as we have noted that full particulars are not
being supplied to either the Petitioner or this Court, but rather
to delay the payment of the reward to the Petitioner. If the
Government has formulated a reward scheme, it must be
implemented fairly and transparently. Informers who take
risks and invest time must not be made to run from pillar to
post to secure what may be due and payable. There must be
no unreasonable delay in paying the determined reward
amounts, and the practice of raising frivolous and belated
objections only to avoid legitimate payments must also be
eschewed.
34. The Petitioner, as clarified in our previous orders, may
accept the amount of Rs. 19,44,802/- or such further amounts
as may be determined and paid by the Respondents to him
under protest, without prejudice to his contentions. For the
balance, the Petitioner can file appropriate proceedings under
the law.
35. The rule in this Petition is made partly absolute and
disposed of in the above terms without any cost orders.
Page 19 of 20
::: Uploaded on – 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::
WP-2283-13-AW-IAL-13522-24-2.DOCX
Interim Application (L) No.13522 of 2024 does not survive
and the same is accordingly disposed of.
36. All concerned must act upon the authenticated copy of
this order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) Page 20 of 20 ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2025 22:19:24 :::