XY Vs Union of India And Ors
Date: October 8, 2025
Subject Matter
Grant of a reward to an informer is generally a discretionary grant, which cannot be claimed as a right.
Summary
The petitioner, an individual informer, filed a writ petition seeking the grant of a reward under a Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) Notification dated July 31, 2015. The reward claim stems from information provided regarding GST evasion by a private entity, M/s Shakti Enterprises.
The core of the dispute is that the initial order-in-original (Dec 6, 2023) raised a substantial demand, which would have entitled the petitioner to a large reward. However, the subsequent order-in-appeal (July 15, 2024) significantly modified the demand and penalties, leading to a much smaller final demand, consequently reducing the potential reward amount. The petitioner is challenging this order-in-appeal, essentially contesting the merits of the tax adjudication between the Revenue and M/s Shakti Enterprises.
Court's Action and Directions:
The Court primarily focused on the maintainability of the petition, expressing a strong prima facie view that an informer has no legally enforceable right to claim an award or challenge a tax adjudication order simply because it affects their potential reward.
Maintainability Query: The Court questioned how an informer, whose status in the proceedings is limited, can acquire a locus standi to contest the merits of the Appellate Order passed in favor of M/s Shakti Enterprises.
Reward is Discretionary: The Court observed that the grant of an award or reward is generally a discretionary grant, which cannot be claimed as a right.
Precedent Cited: Counsel for the Department relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. C Krishna Reddy, which suggests that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued at the behest of an informer.
Directions:
The informer (Petitioner) is directed to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
Both parties are directed to be ready to address the issue of maintainability of the petition.
The Petitioner's notarized affidavit containing full particulars is to be retained by the Registry in a sealed cover.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 63425/2025
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
W. P.(C) 15498/2025
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner on the ground that she has not been considered for the grant of reward in terms of Notification dated 31st July 2015 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Anti Smuggling Unit).
4. The case of the Petitioner is that she had provided information with respect to the wrongdoings and evasion of GST by one M/s Shakti Enterprises. Thereafter, a show cause notice was initially issued to the said entity on 28th July 2023, which culminated in order-in-original dated 6th December 2023. In the said order, a substantial demand was raised on M/s Shakti Enterprises, and further penalties were also imposed.
5. However the said order-in-original dated 6th December 2023 was then challenged in appeal and in the order-in-appeal dated 15th July 2024, the decision was modified and penalties raised against the partners of M/s Shakti Enterprises were set aside along with some of the tax demands. Thereafter, only some small demands have been finally raised in the order-in-appeal dated 15th July, 2024.
6. Thus, the Petitioner, being an informer in the proceedings is aggrieved by the said order-in-appeal dated 15th July, 2024.
7. At the outset, the Court has put a query to ld. Counsel for the Petitioner as to how the petition would be maintainable, as no right can be claimed by an individual to be given an award or a reward. In the opinion of this Court, the grant of an award or a reward to an informer is a discretionary grant and prima facie, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order-in-appeal, since the status of the Petitioner is that of an informer. Such a person cannot create a lison the ground of claiming of an award and contest the private Respondent on merits.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner points out that there is a list of a large number of clients of M/s Shakti Enterprises who had deposited TDS and the taxable value has been wrongly taken by the Department, hence leading to a small demand being raised in the order-in-appeal passed on 15th July, 2024.
9. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Department relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. C Krishna Reddy (2003) 12 SCC 627, to argue that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued at the behest of an informer.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that the informer shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
11. Ld. Counsel for the Parties are directed to be ready to address the issue of maintainability of the petition.
12. The properly notarised affidavit, with full name and particulars of the Petitioner has been handed over to the Court in a sealed cover. Let the same be retained by the Registry in the sealed cover.
13. List on 18th December 2025.