Wp(C)/15688/2008 Of M.k.surendran v. The Director General Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15688 of 2008(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.K.SURENDRAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, AGED 42 YEARS, "M.K.HOUSE", CHALA, 12TH KANDY, THOTTADA P.O, KANNUR-7. BY ADVS. MR.C.KHALID, MR.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER, MR.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM, MR.T.P.SAJID. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION, MADAPPALLY BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, KOCHI. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.S.PRESS, INCOME TAX BUILDING, ERNAKULAM. 3. DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX VIGILANCE (SOUTH), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR, ANNEXE BUILDING, 121, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAN, CHENNAI-34. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INCOME TAXES, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R4 BY MR. JOSE JOSEPH, S.C, R5 BY MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15688 of 2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 8[th] day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be a recognized “informer” to the IncomeTax authorities, on whose information, the departmental authoritiesconducted a raid and collected incriminating documents from thebusiness premises and residence of the concerned evader of IncomeTax. The case of the petitioner is that, the tax recovery resultedbecause of the contribution of the petitioner being of Rs. 3.6 crores asreward, the petitioner is entitled to have 10 % of the said amount i.e. 36lakhs as reward, in tune with the relevant guidelines (Guidelines forGrant of Reward for Informants, issued by the Central Board of DirectTaxes in 1993) whereas the petitioner was given only 2.75 lakhs. 2. In response to Ext.P12 lawyers' notice, the first respondentsent Ext.P13 reply, stating that granting of the benefit is in tune with therelevant 'guidelines' and to the extent the petitioner is actually entitledto have the benefit. It was also stated in Ext.P13 that, if the petitioner isaggrieved in any manner, he could very well approach the 4[th]respondent/appellate authority in this regard. Petitioner hasapproached this Court, challenging the inaction on the part of the 4[th]respondent, despite preferring Ext.P14 appeal in this regard. 3. A statement has been filed from the part of the first respondentseeking to sustain the stand taken by the department, also pointing out in paragraph 11 that, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has alreadybeen considered and disposed of, and that the petitioner wasconveyed to the petitioner through Ext.R1(A) dated 1.8.2007. A copy ofthe minutes of the Committee dated 19.9.2006 is also produced andmarked as Ext.R1(B). It is contended that the petitioner does not haveany legal right to claim the reward as a matter of right, as per the lawdeclared 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 disputeany further. But the point involved is whether Ext.P14 appeal preferredby the petitioner has been considered and disposed of in accordancewith the 'guidelines' as offered and stipulated vide Ext.P13 reply. 5. Ext. R1(A) intimation conveyed to the petitioner shows that itwas only with reference to the letter dated 29.6.2007 of the 4[th]respondent; whereas Ext.R1(B) attached along with it, is dated19.6.2006. That apart, Ext.R1(B) shows that, it is in respect of theproceedings granting “final award” pursuant to the proposal submittedby the Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Kochi and not with reference toExt.P14 appeal preferred by the petitioner. Besides this, no opportunityof hearing was given to the petitioner before finalizing Ext.P14. 5. Ext. R1(A) intimation conveyed to the petitioner shows that itwas only with reference to the letter dated 29.6.2007 of the 4[th]respondent; whereas Ext.R1(B) attached along with it, is dated19.6.2006. That apart, Ext.R1(B) shows that, it is in respect of theproceedings granting “final award” pursuant to the proposal submittedby the Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Kochi and not with reference toExt.P14 appeal preferred by the petitioner. Besides this, no opportunityof hearing was given to the petitioner before finalizing Ext.P14. 6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, Ext.P14 hasto be reconsidered by the fourth respondent with reference to the : 3 : relevant 'guidelines' and also with regard to the actual facts and figures.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing 4[th] respondent toreconsider Ext.P14 appeal preferred by the petitioner, after giving anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, atany rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copyof this judgment. Disposed of as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd