P SIVADASAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioner prays for a nation-wide inquiry into the alleged evasion of taxes by Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL for short) and its sister concerns, in connivance with responsible Government officers. A mandamus, directing an inquiry against the officers responsible for inaction against Hindustan Lever Ltd. has also been prayed for, apart from a mandamus, directing the Union of India to grant a reward to the petitioner for furnishing information leading to the detection of the alleged evasion of taxes and duties by the said company. Since the prayers made by the petitioner are somewhat novel in nature, the same may be extracted at the outset: i)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first respondent to conduct a Nation-wide inquiry into the illegal activities of the H.L.L. and its sister concerns in evading various taxes and the involvement of the responsible officers of the respondents in not conducting timely investigation into the entire episode. ii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first respondent to conduct an inquiry against the officers who are responsible for not taking action against the H.L.L. after petitioner furnishing valuable informations to them and punish them accordingly. iii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first respondent to order for awarding reward to the petitioner for the painful effort made by him for collecting the information about the tax evasion by the H.L.L. iv)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first respondent to enact a new law to avoid time bar for demanding excise duty and other duties evaded by the H.L.L. and its sister concerns running into crores of rupees. v)Such other relief as this Hon'ble court may be deem to be just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) The factual backdrop in which the petitioner has chosen to institute these proceedings may be summarized as under:

(3.) . The petitioner, it appears, was working as a commission and C& RF agent of M/s.Hindustan Lever Ltd., M/s.Lipton India Ltd., M/s.Brook Bond (India) Ltd. and M/s.Ponds (India) Ltd. According to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has resigned from the agency with effect from 18th April, 1994 due to what is described as difference of opinion with the HLL Management. The petitioner s case is that his association running over 15 years with HLL gave him an insight into what the petitioner dubs as illegal activities of the company resulting in evasion of various taxes. The petitioner claims to have furnished information about such activities of HLL in terms of a letter dated 22nd August, 1996. The details of the alleged activities of HLL and its sister concerns have been set out by the petitioner in some detail in the writ petition, reference to which is not immediately relevant for the disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that the petitioner s first letter dated 22nd August, 1996 was followed by other communications, copies whereof have been produced and marked as annexures P-2 to P-13 to the writ petition. The petitioner alleges that although the respondents were convinced about the genuineness of the information provided by the petitioner, they were reluctant to start a nation-wide investigation involving as many as 246 factories and a large number of C& RF depots and branch offices. According to the petitioner, the Additional Director of Central Excise, Zonal Office Chennai informed him on 22nd January, 2000 that they were taking up the matter and would initiate action in the first place in South India and in some places in Western Zone. The writ petition goes on to state that the Department carried out raids in all the South Indian factories of HLL and its godowns. It states that the petitioner was informed after these raids that the officers would first complete investigation in respect of two factories of the company in Kerala State as information provided by the petitioner in respect of the said two factories was found to be true and correct before taking further action. The petitioner, all the same, relentlessly pursued the matter with the authorities by addressing one communication after another, copies whereof have been enclosed with the writ petition as annexure P-14 to P-20. The writ petition states that based on the investigation made at Cochin and Calicut Units of HLL, show cause notices, demanding differential duties and proposing penalty upon the company, were issued which culminated in passing of adjudication orders confirming the demand and levying penalty upon HLL. According to the petitioner, the orders of adjudication raised demand against HLL to the tune of Rs.98,47,229/- and a penalty of Rs.42,61,652/- in terms of one order while a sum of Rs.3,17,537/- and a penalty of Rs.37,17,537/- was demanded in terms of another adjudication order passed against the said company. The writ petition goes on to state that the department also carried out investigation of three units of HLL within the jurisdiction of Mumbai-Zone but the proceedings started on the basis of the said investigation were later dropped.