HC Orders Rs. 19.44 Lakh Reward to 64-Year-Old Informer for Tax Recovery; Dismisses Govt’s Delaying Tactics

A 64-year-old taxpayer filed a writ petition in 2013 to claim reward money for information provided since 1992, which resulted in significant sales tax recoveries from evaders, including public sector oil firms and certain co-operative societies. Although the Government’s resolution dated 01.01.1976 granted informers the right to rewards, authorities consistently delayed payment. Despite multiple High Court orders from 2007 onward, the petitioner only received vague replies. An interim reward of Rs. 75,000 was paid in 2015, but the final amount was never settled.

On 04.10.2024, the Joint Commissioner of State Tax confirmed that the petitioner was owed Rs. 19,44,802 as a reward, pending government approval due to the amount exceeding Rs. 5 lakh. However, the government failed to disburse the sum, later claiming the petitioner did not submit information in the prescribed Form-A, despite records indicating otherwise.

Main Issue: Whether the petitioner, who had provided information resulting in irrevocable tax recoveries, was entitled to the determined reward amount of Rs. 19,44,802 despite departmental delays and shifting defences.

HC Held: The High Court allowed the petition in part and ordered the Respondents to give the petitioner Rs. 19,44,802 within six weeks of the order being uploaded. The Court observed that authorities had computed the reward in accordance with the 2007 Government Resolution and had acknowledged recoveries of over Rs. 12.93 crore that were attributable to the petitioner’s information under the Amnesty Scheme 2019. The late Form-A objection was dismissed as factually false and brought up solely to deny rightful dues.

The Sales Tax Commissioner and Finance Secretary were directed to finalize the reward amount within six months and release it within two months, providing full details of recoveries and pending appeals. The Bench stressed that reward programs should be applied equitably and that informers shouldn’t be forced to work nonstop. The determined amount was allowed to be accepted under protest by the petitioner, who retained the right to pursue any remaining funds in a separate proceeding.

To Read Full Order, Download Attached PDF File Below