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 – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(T) No. 7283 of 2023
Decided On : 12-02-2025
(A) Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Act, 2022 - The petitioner challenged the dismissal of their appeal under the Settlement Scheme of 2022 regarding disputed tax for the financial year 2001-02. The petitioner contended that the pre-deposit should have been adjusted after applying the waiver under the scheme. (Paras 1-26)
(B) Taxation - The court emphasized that the intent of the Settlement Scheme is to provide a waiver of disputed tax, and the methodology adopted by the assessing officer was erroneous. The court ruled that the pre-deposit should not be deducted before applying the waiver. (Paras 21-26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing vehicles, disputed an assessment order for the financial year 2001-02, claiming excess payment due to incorrect application of the Settlement Scheme. (Paras 2-8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the methodology used by the assessing officer was incorrect and directed the refund of Rs. 1,18,02,056/- along with interest. (Paras 26-27)
Issues: The main issues were whether the pre-deposit should be deducted before applying the waiver under the Settlement Scheme and the correct computation of the settlement amount. (Paras 6-8, 21-22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Settlement Scheme's intent was to provide a waiver of disputed tax, and the pre-deposit should not be deducted before applying the waiver, ensuring fairness in tax liability computation. (Paras 21-26)
Result: The impugned order was set aside, and a writ of mandamus was issued for the refund of Rs. 1,18,02,056/- with interest.
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. 412 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-01/2023-24 for the period 2001-02, 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 2001-02 to the extent the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 2.20 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. 1,32,03,446/- or alternatively Rs. 1,18,02,056/- as per revised computation filed before the Appellate Authority (Annexure-15).
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/ direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 1,32,03,446/- or alternatively, to refund an amount of Rs. 1,18,02,056/- as per revised computation filed before the Appellate Authority (Annexure- 15) 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. 1,32,03,446/- or alternatively, interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,18,02,056/- as per revised computation filed before the Appellate Authority (Annexure-15) 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 2001-02 under Bihar Finance Act, 1981 . For the period in dispute, an assessment order dated 27.03.2006 was passed by assessing officer, wherein as against the admitted tax liability of Rs. 8,17,38,401/- assessment of tax was made for an amount of Rs. 13,63,45,498/- and, thus, disputed tax remained as Rs. 5,46,07,097/-. 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. 1620 of 2014. It is an admitted fact that as against the disputed tax liability of Rs. 5,46,07,097/-petitioner deposited on various dates an amount of Rs. 2.20 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 of2023’].
5. Peti
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 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 treatment for taxpayers.
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 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....
Settlement Act is self-contained code; post-payment under scheme, no outstanding dues exist for MVAT refund adjustment from prior period against settled subsequent period demand.
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.