Case Law Details
Amrit Lal Mehta Vs Director General Of Revenue Intelligence & Others (Delhi HC)-
In the first three minutes, reward has been awarded @ 19.4% that is nearly the maximum possible rate. The said reward was on the principal amount of customs duty of Rs.1.21 crores and, therefore, the Reward Committee was competent to award a lower amount/ percentage on the penalty and fine amount but this is not the reason and ground given in the last two minutes of the Reward Committee.
The Reward Committee in the last two minutes has opined that the information given by the petitioner was of generic nature and according to the role played, the petitioner is entitled to reward @ 8.33% on Rs. 60 lacs and 8.28% on Rs.160 lacs. There is a contradiction between the findings recorded in the minutes of the Reward Committee dated 6th November, 2007 in which it was decided that the petitioner would be paid reward @ 15% on all future realisation of the penalty amount. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the petitioner that there is element of arbitrariness, inconsistency and disagreement in the three minutes. In the last two minutes as a result of variance with the finding recorded in the minutes dated 6th November, 2007 and the earlier meeting on the 11th May, 2004 the rewarded amount had come down to 8.33% and 8.28%. Reward is to be awarded by the Reward Committee keeping in mind several aspects including specificity and accuracy of information, risk and trouble taken, extent and nature of help rendered by the informer, etc. The information furnished was the same, but there is substantial variance in the amount rewarded. On the basis of the same information, reward on the penalty and fine amount has varied between 15% to 8.28%. Same very information was held to be good to make re-award @ 15% but subsequently held to be generic and not specific and, therefore, the reward was reduced to 8.33% and then 8.28%. The difference in monetary terms in view of the quantum is substantial. It is not as if the Reward Committee in the meeting dated 6th November, 2007 did not know the quantum of penalty and fine. The said amount of Rs.2.5 crores had been already quantified and is mentioned in the first minutes of the meeting of the Reward Committee held on 12th August, 1997. In these circumstances, we pass an order of remit and ask the Reward Committee to consider afresh the rewards awarded vide minutes dated 26th March, 2009 and 10th March, 2010. We are not inclined to pass an order of remit in respect of the meeting held on 6th November, 2007. Percentage and extent of reward, which can be awarded in case of principal amount, i.e., customs duty and the penalty/fine amount can vary and need not be the same. The amount of reward already paid can also be relevant criteria. We do not express any opinion on whether or not reward already sanctioned/paid is sufficient or not. This is for the reward committee to examine. We have merely considered the reasons recorded in the minutes dated 26th March, 2009 and the 10th march, 2010 and find that they are arbitrary and cannot be reconciled with the earlier finding and reasoning.
FULL TEXT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:-
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
