Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2016 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 240 - HC - Service TaxEntitlement for balance reward as per reward circulars - On information of petitioner department came to know about the defaulter of service tax who then, voluntarily deposited his service tax dues for which petitioner needs to be rewarded claimed by petitioner - Petitioner's role has not been discussed and a quantum of reward has been determined unilaterally much below the prescribed limit of 50%, therefore, balance amount of the reward be directed to be paid - Held that:- the reward disbursed to the petitioner till date is only an advance amount and not the final sum. The respondents are misleading this court and they ought to faithfully disclose that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of ₹ 51.87 lacs. The petitioner disputes the computation and submits that because of the nature of services offered by the assessee that he learnt about the service tax evasion. The assessee evaded service tax. The petitioner's information led to recovery of tax along with interest worth ₹ 2.5935 crores. The evaded tax was paid by the assessee voluntarily under the self assessment scheme and investigators had very little role in the recovery, which alone was enough to qualify and consider the petitioner eligible for full reward at the rate of 20%. Thus, how the reward amount is to be computed and whether the amount as computed by the respondents is in tune with the reward scheme or the circular in that behalf itself is a disputed question. Once the petitioner now and in the rejoinder affidavit seeks more details of the information already forwarded and tries to elaborate it with figures, particularly after enlisting the services provided by the assessee, then, all the more such a factual dispute can not be resolved. an elaborate exercise of arriving at the figures of the reward cannot be undertaken as it is not just on affidavits that the figures can be determined and correctly but the affidavit sets out versions of both sides. Which version is the correct one would have to be determined in appropriate proceedings. If the petitioner claims the sum under the head "balance reward”, then, whether that balance, as computed by the petitioner, is accurate or that there is no balance are matters which must be resolved by a competent Civil Court. It is not as if the petitioner is remedyless. Decided against the petitioner
|