IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
M/s. Tata Cummins Private Limited, through its Signatory-cum-Junior Manager-Legal namely, Vyom Ashik Ajmera, son of Shri Ashik Kishore Ajmera – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(T) No. 2204 of 2024
Decided On : 12-02-2025
(A) Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Act, 2022 - The petitioner challenged the dismissal of their appeal regarding excess tax payment under the Settlement Scheme of 2022. The appellate authority's order was found erroneous as it improperly deducted pre-deposit from the disputed amount before calculating the waiver. (Paras 1, 7, 25)
(B) Taxation - The court emphasized that the intent of the Settlement Scheme is to benefit the taxpayer, and any interpretation that penalizes those who pre-pay taxes contradicts this intent. (Paras 21, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a joint venture company, contested a tax liability determined at Rs. 12,89,71,279/- against an admitted liability of Rs. 5,17,39,669/-. They deposited Rs. 76,00,000/- as pre-deposit and later claimed excess payment of Rs. 45,60,000/- under the Settlement Scheme. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellate authority's calculation was incorrect and ordered the refund of Rs. 45,60,000/- along with interest. (Paras 25, 26)
Issues: The main issues included the proper interpretation of the Settlement Scheme and the calculation of tax liability concerning pre-deposit amounts. (Paras 10, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Settlement Scheme should not disadvantage taxpayers who make pre-deposits, affirming that the waiver should be calculated on the total disputed amount without prior deductions. (Paras 21, 24)
Result: The writ application is allowed, and the appellate authority's order is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present writ application has been filed praying therein for the following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 576 dated 25.10.2023 [Annexure-12] passed by Respondent No.2- Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur in Appeal Case No. JR/JKSYA-07/2023-24 for the period 2003-04, wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner in terms of ‘Jharkhand KaradhanAdhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Act, 2022’ [hereinafter referred to as ‘Settlement Scheme of 2022’ for short], has been dismissed.
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the order of settlement issued under Jharkhand KaradhanAdhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Act, 2022 contained in Form JKSY-V dated 09.05.2023 (Annexure-9) passed by Respondent No. 4 pertaining to the period 2003-04 to the extent the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 76,00,000/- being the amount of disputed tax paid by Petitioner has not been allowed to be adjusted against the final settlement amount while issuing settlement order, due to which, Petitioner was compelled to deposit excess payment of Rs. 45,60,000/-.
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/ direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 45,60,000/- being the excess amount realized by Respondents in terms of Settlement Scheme of 2022 by adopting the mechanism of deducting the amount of pre-deposit made by Petitioner against the disputed tax and, thereafter, conferring the benefit of waiver of tax to the Petitioner in a most illegal and arbitrary manner.
(iv) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondents to make payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 45,60,000/- from the date of deposit i.e. 08.05.2023, till the date of refund of the said amount.
(v) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s), as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case as evident from the records is that the petitioner is a Joint Venture Company formed by and between Tata Motors Limited and Cummins Inc USA having its date of commercial production as on 01.01.1996, and, is engaged primarily in manufacturing/assembling of high speed diesel engines for automotive applications including diesel engines for industrial, power generation and CNG applications.
3. The present writ petition relates to dispute of financial year 2003-04 under Bihar Finance Act, 1981. For the period in dispute, an assessment order was passed by assessing officer, wherein claim of the petitioner regarding exemption from payment of additional tax and surcharge was rejected and, consequentially, as against admitted liability of Rs. 5,17,39,669/-, total tax liability of Rs. 12,89,71,279/-was determined.
Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(T) No. 3749 of 2016 and it is an admitted fact that during stage of adjudication proceedings, an amount of Rs. 76,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner to the state exchequer as pre-deposit.
4. In the meanwhile, the State of Jharkhand formulated an Amnesty Scheme namely, “Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Act, 2022” [hereinafter referred to as ‘Amnesty Scheme’] and even Rules for giving effect to the said scheme was formulated namely, ‘Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Rules, 2023’ [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2023’].
5. The petitioner being desirous of availing benefit under the Scheme filed online application in prescribed format in terms of Rule- 3(1) of Rules of 2023 but while filing online application form suo-motu computation of the benefit under Amnesty Scheme was determined in the following manner:-
| Sl. No. | ||
The court held that under the Settlement Scheme, pre-deposits should not be deducted from the disputed amount before calculating tax waivers, ensuring taxpayers are not penalized for pre-payment.
The court clarified that under the Settlement Scheme, pre-deposits should not be deducted from disputed tax before applying waivers, ensuring equitable treatment for taxpayers.
The court ruled that under the Settlement Scheme, pre-deposits should not be deducted before applying tax waivers, ensuring fair computation of tax liabilities.
The court ruled that pre-deposits should not be deducted before applying tax waivers under the Settlement Scheme, ensuring taxpayers are not penalized for compliance.
The court ruled that under the Settlement Scheme, pre-deposits should not be deducted before applying tax waivers, ensuring fair treatment for taxpayers.
The court established that a taxpayer who has paid the principal tax is entitled to a waiver of interest and penalty under the Amnesty Scheme, regardless of subsequent demands for penalty.
Payments made under the Amnesty Scheme are to be treated as deposits and not appropriated under Section 91 of the KVAT Act, allowing for potential refunds of excess payments.
The court established that payment of tax and interest prior to assessment qualifies a taxpayer for the waiver of penalties under the Amnesty Scheme, regardless of subsequent procedural misinterpreta....
The court ruled that misstatements in declarations under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme negate eligibility for relief, emphasizing the necessity of accurate claims regarding CENVAT credit utilization.
The court established that pre-deposits should be deducted only after calculating the relief under the SVLDRS, ensuring accurate determination of tax dues.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.