Basant Kumar Soni V. The Union of India

WP/5994/2025

AI Insights

Basant Kumar Soni filed a writ petition against the Union of India and the Director-General of Income Tax, Telangana, challenging the personal information requirements under the Income Tax Informant Reward Scheme, 2018. The petitioner argued that the information sought was irrelevant and lacked rational nexus to the scheme's purpose. This was Soni's second round of litigation, following an earlier petition that was dismissed for want of prosecution. The court dismissed the current petition, noting the petitioner's failure to raise these issues earlier and the voluntary provision of information without prior conditions for reward.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744742 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: BASANT SONI
• Keywords: Natural Justice; Personal Information; Tax Evasion; Writ of Mandamus; Income Tax Reward Scheme, 2018; Legal Prosecution
• Section: 6; 12; 2; 15; 5; 7; 14; 3

Judgement Text

"13447l HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5994 OF 2025 AND 1 Between: Basant Kumar Soni, S/o. Shri Ramesh Chandra Soni, aqed 46 vears. Occ Advocate, Rt/o. H. No. 15-2-204, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad.\" ...PETITIONER The.Union of .lndia, Rep Prl. Sec. Ministry of Finance, North Block, Raisina Hill, New Delhi - 110 001 The Director-General of lncome _Tax (investigation ), Telangana State, Aayakar Bhawan, Bth floor, Basheer Bagh, Hydera\"bad 500 029. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order(s), or Direction(s), more specifically a writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the official Respondents in not paying the reward amount pursuant to the representation-cum-information regarding tax evasion dated 17 July 2o2o, under the lncome-Tax Reward scheme, 2018, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court directs the official Respondents to release the reward amount in accordance with the provisions of the Reward Scheme, 2018, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to strike down Annexure-A to the extent mandating for furnishing of the personal information of the informant unrelated to the tax evasion information under the lncome Tax 2 lnformant Reward Scheme, 2018, particularly in columns 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15, as being illegal, arbitrary, and lacking a rational nexus. I/V IHE Alternate. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BASANT KUMAR SONI [PARTY-lN-PERSONI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SoLICITOR GEN. oF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND E N'BLE RI JU ARSI NANDIK WRIT P TITION No.5994 ot 2O25 / ORDER: (per the Hon'ble sri Justice P.sam Koshv) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the various personal information which have been sought from the informer in the course of providing information to the Income Tax Department under the Income Tax Informant Reward Scheme, 2018 (for short the'scheme of 2018') expecting the rewards in terms of the Scheme of 2018. 2. According to Mr. Basant Kumar Soni, petitioner / party-in- person, the personal information of the informant sought for by the Income Tax Department under the Income Tax Information Reward Scheme, 2018 particularly column Nos.2, 3,5,6,7, !2, 14 and 15 to be without any rational nexus and of any relevance for the purpose under which the Scheme of 2018 has been framed and the information that the informant intends to supply to the Income Tax Depaftment. ------------- Page 2 of 5 3. The instant is a second round of litigation on behalf of the petitioner. Earlier also the petitioner had filed a writ petition i.e. W.P.No.l0B46of2o2twhereinhissubstantivegrlevanceWaS inaction on the part of the Income Tax Department in not taking up any proceedings against the defaulters about whom the petitioner has informed to the Income Tax Department, particularly that of tax evasion and loss of revenue being caused at the behest of the so- called defaulters. In the said writ petition, the petitioner by way of an amendment had sought for a direction to the respondent(s) to grant reward under the Scheme of 2018 to the petitioner for having provided valuable information in respect of the evasion of tax by the so-called defaulters in the said communication made to the Income Tax Department. The said writ petition stood dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 03.03.2022 as the petitioner does not seem to have taken keen interest in prosecuting the said case' 4. There have been no efforts made by the petitioner for revival of the said writ petition till date. It appears that pending the said writ petition, the respondent(s) seem to have initiated proceedings against the so-called defaulters. Since, as the petitioner did not get .|r any reward, he has now filed the second writ petition seeking for Page 3 of 6 quashment of certain columns in the format under which the lnformation for availing the benefit under the scheme of 2018 is required to be provided. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that none of these information those are sought in column Nos.2, 3,5,6,7, 12, 14 and 15 are of any necesslty for the Department; nor is it going to be of some advantage or benefit for the Department, and if these columns are not required to be filled up then the information so provided by the concerned informer itself is sufficient for the Department to proceed and take appropriate action against the so- called informant. Further, if the information is found to be correct and the informant having helped the Department in unearthing the evasion of tax, then the benefit under no circumstances as provided under the scheme of 2018 should be denied to the petitioner. 6. According to the petitioner, only because the information provided by the petitioner is not in terms of the format required under the scheme by itself should be a ground for the Department to refuse the benefit under the said scheme, if the information provided by the informer is found to be correct. .--------.-----7 1.l- 1 PaEe 4 of 6 7. At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that we do not find any substantiar merits in the case of the petitioner for more than one reasons, those are:- a) The petitioner courd have challenged these clauses when he had filed the first writ petition i.e. W.p.No.10g46 of 2021. For reasons best known, he did not choose to raise these clauses at that point of time, and now he wants to avail the benefit under the scheme of 201g. b) The petitioner's earlier writ petition got dismissed in default on 03.03.2022. A subsequent petition germinating from the same cause with a prayer which ultimately leads to the redressal of the prayer made in the first writ petition cannot be permitted, and in the process, the claim of the petitioner would not be susta ina b ler. c) The petitioner could have challenged these clauses before he had furnished these information to the Department at the first instance vide his legal notice dated 14.12.2020. Having not challenged it at that point of time, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the same now in peace_meal after the earlier writ petition was dismissed. , , /. a I I Page 5 of 5 d) Even otherwise, this Court does not find any merits in the case of the petitioner for the reason that the Department did not adjudicate upon the matter and the writ petition was finally dismissed in default for want of prosecution. e) The petitioner voluntarily made available all the information that was available wlth hlm in respect of the evasion of tax, the petitioner was never coerced or pressurized by the Department to come forward and provide information and the petitioner voluntarily without claiming any modification to the scheme or amendment to the scheme provided information to / the Department. The petitioner should not have, at the first instance, made available all the information and should have first imposed a condition of whether he would be rewarded or not before making available the information. f) For the voluntary act on the part of the petitioner in making available the information, that too, not in the format as is required under the scheme of 2018, he cannot be now permitted to turn around and claim a reward or challenge the clauses in the application for providing information to the Department. ----------7 I I Page 5 of 6 8. The instant writ petition for the aforesaid reasons, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. r., SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU EPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' To, SECTION OFFICER 1. One CC to SRI BASANT KUMAR SON| [pARTy-l PERSONI 2. One CC to SRI OOO, pR,AVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOL|C|TOR GEN. OF lNDtA, High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hiddrabad lOpU-Ct -- .' - \"'-\" 3. Two CD Copies BSR GJP cAk --7 HIGH COURT DATED: 1810312025 ORDER WP.No.5994 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS L 05 cH 1 gE STArF S pA-T C 02 luu 2Ut5 t t U z a I ( c,l tv( -,a. ( 6 "