After a 29-year wait, a 76-year-old whistleblower, Darshan Singh Parmar, has been awarded £19.44 lakh by the Bombay High Court. Mr. Parmar exposed a significant tax evasion racket involving public sector oil company officers and fishermen cooperatives back in 1996, which allegedly led to tax recoveries of £361 crore. The court criticised the Maharashtra government for its extensive delays and bureaucratic indifference in honouring its own reward scheme for informers.
After nearly three decades of relentless struggle, a 76-year-old resident of Chembur, Darshan Singh Parmar, has finally received justice for his role in exposing a massive tax evasion racket involving public sector oil company officers and fishermen cooperatives. The Bombay High Court has ordered the Maharashtra government to pay him Rs 19.44 lakh within six weeks, reprimanding authorities for the inordinate delay and bureaucratic apathy.
Parmar blew the whistle on the racket back in August 199
Daily Limit Reached
You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free News
Subscribe to
CCI PRO
for unlimited access
Why Upgrade to
CCI PRO?
-
No Ads
-
WhatsApp Community
-
Daily E-Newsletter
-
Unlimited News Access
-
Profile Visitors
-
Link Social Profiles
-
Featured Job Posts
-
Pro Badge
-
Expert GST Guidance
-
Unlimited Forum Replies
-
Download Content in PDF
1 Year PLAN
1999
(Excl. of GST ₹359)
BEST VALUE
2 Years PLAN
3499
(Excl. of GST ₹629)
3 Months PLAN
999
(Excl. of GST ₹179)
View all CCI PRO benefits
Already a PRO member?
Login here
for an ad-free experience.
FAQ :
The whistleblower is Darshan Singh Parmar, a 76-year-old resident of Chembur.
The case involved a tax evasion racket linked to public sector oil company officers and fishermen cooperatives, with alleged tax recoveries amounting to £361 crore.
The Bombay High Court has ordered the Maharashtra government to pay him £19.44 lakh.
He had to wait for nearly 29 years, having first blown the whistle in August 1996.
The court criticised the state government for inordinate delays and bureaucratic apathy, noting that officials failed to implement the reward scheme fairly and transparently.
The court rejected the tax department's arguments that rewards are only disbursed after final recovery, emphasising that the amount determined by them should not have been withheld.