9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 401 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxRejection of applications moved by the petitioner for one time settlement of outstanding dues under the Haryana One Time Settlement of Outstanding Dues Act, 2017 and Haryana One Time Settlement Scheme for Recovery of Outstanding Dues, 2023 - whether merely because the High Court had while declining interim relief, made observations that all the proceedings taken by the respondents and deposits made by the petitioner, would be subject to final order of this Court, can it be said that the entire amount was a disputed tax? - HELD THAT - The petitioner s claim that the amount, which it has deposited in the category of disputed tax, may be considered for considering the OTS application is wholly misconceived and cannot be sustained. The mere stating of this Court that all the payments which the petitioner has to make would be subject to final outcome is merely a reiterating the theory of lis pendens . Since the petitioner was not granted any interim relief, the amount has to be treated to be admitted tax to be paid by the petitioner in full. It is also noticed that if ultimately the petitioner s writ petition is dismissed, it would be the amount which has been already assessed that the petitioner would have to deposit and in One Time Settlement also the same would, therefore, be considered. However, if the writ petition is allowed, the petitioner can always claim refund. The decision of the authorities, in rejecting the application on the basis of the amount being less than what was required to be paid, cannot be said to be unjustified or illegal. The petitioner would be well advised to deposit the remaining amount, if it so wants to further pursue the OTS application treating it as an admitted tax . All the writ petitions are dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of OTS-5 order under Haryana One Time Settlement of Outstanding Dues Act, 2017 and Scheme 2023 for assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a subsidiary of Sony Group Corporation, challenged the rejection of OTS-5 order by the Excise & Taxation Officer. The petitioner sought relief under the Haryana One Time Settlement of Outstanding Dues Act, 2017 and the Recovery Scheme of 2023 for outstanding dues for the mentioned assessment years. 2. The petitioner's history of disputes with the Haryana State Government regarding local area taxes was outlined. The petitioner had challenged the imposition of taxes on goods sent out of Haryana, leading to various legal proceedings and representations. 3. The Assessing Authority issued notices for best judgment assessment for the relevant years but later withdrew them. Subsequently, a notice was issued demanding a substantial sum as tax under the HLADT Act, leading to further legal actions by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner applied for settlement under the OTS Scheme, disputing the entire tax amount under the Disputed Tax Category. However, a deficiency notice was issued, stating the amount should be treated as admitted tax, leading to the rejection of the application. 5. The petitioner argued that all amounts should be treated as disputed tax based on previous court observations. The petitioner cited various legal judgments in support of their argument. 6. The court analyzed the provisions of the OTS Scheme, distinguishing between admitted tax and disputed tax. It highlighted the percentages payable under different tax categories as per the Scheme. 7. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the entire amount should be considered disputed tax, emphasizing that the rejection was valid as the amount fell under admitted tax based on past assessments. 8. The court dismissed the writ petitions, advising the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount if they wished to pursue the OTS application further. The court clarified the importance of understanding the tax categories under the Scheme and the implications of the pending litigation on the payment obligations. 9. All pending applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
