Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday came down heavily on government authorities for failing to pay a fair reward to a 76-year-old informer who has been providing credible leads on tax evaders since 1992.
A bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain directed the Maharashtra government to pay Rs 19 lakh as interim reward to Darshan Singh Parmar, and determine the exact amount payable to him within six months.
Parmar had approached the court stating that he had been supplying valuable information to the State Sales Tax Department for over three decades, which led to tax recoveries from various evaders. Despite this, he was denied the reward due under the government scheme.
Court Criticizes Delay in Rewarding Long-Time Tax Informer
“The informers, based on whose information, tax evaders are brought to book and taxes recovered, should not be made to run from pillar to post or otherwise suffer frustration,” the court observed. It added that those who take the risk and invest time in assisting the government “must not be made to suffer delays or denials.”
Authorities Accused of Withholding Data to Stall Payment
The court was critical of the authorities for failing to furnish accurate details of the reward due to Parmar or the extent of tax recoveries made on the basis of his information. “The Respondents have consistently been uncooperative in providing the necessary details, solely to delay the payment indefinitely,” it noted.
Parmar Shared Tax Evasion Leads Since 1992, Yet Denied Dues
Parmar contended that the Rs 19 lakh calculated by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax in 2024 was far less than what was due. The bench said it could not at this stage determine the precise amount but directed the government to pay the interim amount within six weeks.
It also ordered the Sales Tax Commissioner and the Finance Secretary to fix the exact reward amount within six months and ensure its payment within two months thereafter.
Court Warns Against Frivolous Objections to Deny Legitimate Claims
“Once the Government formulates a reward scheme, it should be operated fairly and squarely,” the court remarked, warning against the practice of raising frivolous objections to avoid legitimate dues.
