Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
M/s Tata Motors Limited, through its Authorized Signatory-cum Deputy General Manager (Finance), Indirect Taxation, namely, Pankaj Kumar Patwari, son of Late Shankar Lal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(T) No. 7275 of 2023
Decided On : 12-02-2025
(A) Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Act, 2022 - Sections 2, 3, and 8 - Writ application for quashing the order of settlement and refund of excess payment under the Settlement Scheme - The petitioner contended that the adjustment of pre-deposit against disputed tax was erroneous and contrary to the intent of the Scheme. (Paras 1, 6, 20, 24)
(B) Taxation - Waiver of disputed tax - The court held that the methodology of first deducting pre-deposit from disputed tax before applying waiver was incorrect and contrary to the beneficial nature of the Settlement Scheme. (Paras 21, 25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing, challenged the dismissal of their appeal regarding excess payment of disputed tax under the Settlement Scheme for the financial year 2002-03, claiming that the adjustment of pre-deposit was improper. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the adjustment of pre-deposit before applying the waiver under the Settlement Scheme was erroneous, leading to an excess payment of Rs. 3,02,07,231.20 by the petitioner. (Paras 24, 26)
Issues: The main issues included whether the adjustment of pre-deposit against disputed tax was appropriate and the correct application of the waiver provisions under the Settlement Scheme. (Paras 10, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the intent of the Settlement Scheme was to provide a waiver on the disputed tax amount without first deducting any pre-deposit, ensuring that taxpayers who made pre-deposits are not worse off than those who did not. (Paras 21, 25)
Result: The impugned order was set aside, and a writ of mandamus was issued for the refund of the excess amount along with interest. (Paras 26, 27)
JUDGMENT :
1. The present writ application has been filed praying therein for the following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 413 dated 24.07.2023 (Annexure-11) passed by Respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur in Appeal Case No. JR/JKSYA-02/2023-24 for the period 2002-03, wherein the appeal filed by the Petitioner in terms of ‘ Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon 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 dated 3rd May, 2023 (Anneuxre-9) passed by Respondent No.3 under Settlement Scheme of 2022 pertaining to the period 2002-03 to the extent the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 8.80 crores, 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. 3,02,07,231.20.
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/ direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 3,02,07,231.20 being the excess amount realized by them 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. 3,02,07,231.20 from the date of deposit i.e. 28.04.2023, 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. Brief facts of the case as evident from the records is that petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and selling of heavy and medium commercial vehicles and its spare and accessories and is also having its unit at Jamshedpur in the District of East Singhbhum, State of Jharkhand.
3. The present writ petition relates to dispute of financial year 2002-03 under Bihar Finance Act, 1981. For the period in dispute, an assessment order dated 12.03.2007 was passed by assessing officer, wherein as against the admitted tax liability of Rs. 11,06,65,411/-, assessment of tax was made for an amount of Rs. 27,37,50,310/-. Against the said order, petitioner after exhausting the remedy of appeal and revision filed writ petition before this Hon’ble Court vide W.P.(T) No. 1628 of 2014 and W.P.(T) No.4153 of 2015. It is an admitted fact that as against the disputed tax liability of Rs. 16,30,84,899/-, petitioner deposited on various dates an amount of Rs. 8.80 crores which was primarily deposited by it either towards pre-deposit and/or amounts towards condition of stay passed by various forms.
4. In the meanwhile, 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 also formulated namely, ‘Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Rules, 2023’ [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2023’].
5. 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 it is the case of the petitioner that while filing online application formsuo-motu computation of the benefit under Amnesty Scheme was determined, wherein the amount of pre- deposit of Rs. 8.80 crores was first adjusted against the disputed amount and upon remaining balance, wai
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 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 Circular altered the definition of 'amount in arrears' as defined under Section 121(c) of the Scheme, and the action of the Designated Committee in first deducting the amount of deposit made by t....
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 established that pre-deposits should be deducted only after calculating the relief under the SVLDRS, ensuring accurate determination of tax dues.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
