IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15565 of 2023 ==========================================================

GOPAL DHANJIBHAI BHIMANI Versus INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 06/01/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Since a short issue is involved in the matter, the same is taken up for final hearing.

2. RULE. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

3. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, is claiming the reward upon furnishing the information to the respondent-department, as per the policy in the form of Guidelines for Grant of Rewards to Informants, 2007. It is the case of the petitioner that he had supplied vital information to the respondent-department relating to the evasion of tax and, pursuant to that, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent- department to fill up the prescribed form, which he filled in the presence of the competent officer. The petitioner was also granted an interim award of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, thereafter, the respondent-department had refused to give any further reward in accordance with the policy. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing the writ petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval, appearing for the petitioner, at the outset has placed reliance on the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ketan Kantilal Modi Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 581, and has submitted that the Committee which is formed under the policy may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and take a necessary decision after hearing the present petitioner, since after the interim reward of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the respondent-department has not passed any final award. It is submitted that as per the information supplied by the petitioner to the respondent-department, which discloses tax evasion running into crores of rupees, it is impossible to believe that there is no escapement of income and that the petitioner, as a consequence, is not entitled to further reward.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr. Raval, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Patel has submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled to any further amount as per the policy, since the Revenue did not find any vital information regarding any large-scale tax evasion by the Vasant Group of builders. Since no addition was made during the assessment on the issue of earned money, the petitioner is not entitled to any further award except the interim reward of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which has already been paid to him.

Thus, it is urged that the petitioner is not entitled to any further reward.

6. The aforementioned facts about the grant of information by the present petitioner relating to tax evasion of the Vasant Group of builders to the respondent-department are not in dispute. The petitioner was asked to fill up the form of statement as per the Guidelines of 2007, more particularly, as prescribed under Clause No. 8 of such Guidelines. The petitioner was called upon by the Income Tax Authority and, accordingly, he had signed the written statement in the presence of the competent authority on 13.05.2013. The petitioner was also given an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as an interim reward in terms of the Policy Guidelines, 2007. However, no final reward has been granted by the respondent- department for the reason that on reassessment it was found that no income had escaped assessment.

7. At this stage, we may refer to the provisions of Clause No. 2.1 of the Gu