TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smuggling activity by M/s J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''JKSL''). According to the petitioner, ther e was concealment in the consignment of Heavy Duty Direct Cablers imported at Calcutta by JKSL against the import license dated 6.11.1986. In the petition, the petitioner has pointed out about the manner in which the information was conveyed and how hi information was helpful to the Revenue in collecting huge amount from the person (JKSL) evading the duty. 3.Subsequently, he approached the respondent No.1 and on behalf of respondent No.1, an affidavit is filed by one Mr R.K. Joshi, Assistant Director. It is admitted that the petitioner provided information to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licy part amount has been paid and final reward is to be considered only upon actual realisation of the dues. So far as this actual realisation is concerned, if we accept the contention of the Revenue then the petitioner will not be in a position to get the benefit of the scheme. In para 32 the respondent has no. 1 stated as under: ''AAIFR has passed an order for depositing the dues of ₹ 2.5 crores. In the year 2003-2004, three refund claims amounting to ₹ 2.29 crores were sanctioned to M/s JKSL (namely the person against whom the information was conveyed by the petitioner) but were not paid in cash to them; they were adjusted towards recovery of dues. It is submitted that the process of launching prosecution against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il Appeal No.7127 of 1999 decided on 18.12.2003), this court cannot issue a writ in a matter like this. Learned counsel submitted that the Supreme Court has pointed out as under: ''The High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot examine or weigh the various factors which have to be taken into consideration while deciding a claim regarding grant of refund. These are matters exclusively within the domain of the authorities of the Department as they alone can weigh and examine the usefulness or otherwise of the information given by the informer.'' However, it is interesting to note that the Supreme Court also pointed out as under: '' In the writ petition filed by the respondent, no details had been given on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner action was taken, the amount has been recovered and part of the reward has also been paid to the petitioner. It is also required to be noted that the Supreme Court considered its earlier decision in the case of Union of India v R. Padmanabhan: 2003 JT 7 SC 196 where exactly the same question was examined and it was held that being ex-gratia no right accrued to any sum as such till it is determined and awarded and, in such cases, normally it should not only be in terms of the guidelines and policy, in force, as on the date of consideration and actual grant but has to be necessarily with reference to any indications contained in this regard in the scheme itself. 10. Therefore, following the scheme, the benefit is required to be give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
