9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectively in the three writ petitions hereinabove. 2. For the purpose of adjudication CWP No. 27711 of 2024 is being taken as a lead case. The petitioner states itself to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Group Corporation, Japan, engaged in manufacturing of coloured televisions and audio products at its former factory Dharuhera, Haryana facility. It has further expanded trading activities in manufacturing and sale of electronics, including video cameras, recording media, GSM phones and computer monitors. The approval from the Government of India was granted to establish a 100% subsidiary and states itself to be at the forefront of technological innovation in India. The Haryana State Government promulgated the Haryana Local Area Developme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only for industries and not for any specific raw material. The petitioner preferred another CWP No. 8355 of 2002. The same was admitted by this Court. The earlier writ petition was declared as having become infructuous. This Court declined any interim relief to the petitioner and clarified as under:- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the view that the issue involved in the writ petition can be resolved only at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. While declining to grant any interim relief to the petitioner, we direct that the writ petition be set down for hearing on 19.1.2004. We, however, make it clear that all the proceedings taken by the respondents and all depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated as admitted tax instead of disputed tax as it would have to deposit 40% of the total amount. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since this Court in CWP No. 8355 of 2002 had stated all proceedings taken by the respondents and all deposits made by the petitioner, if any, during the pendency of the writ petition were subject to final orders to be passed by this Court, the entire amount of tax being claimed against the petitioner has to be treated as disputed and the respondents could not have rejected its application treating the tax to be paid as admitted tax. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has relied on judgments of Hon ble the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le-1. The Schedule-1 talks of following tax which is required to be payable as per the concerned category of tax:- 1 2 3 4 5 Serial Number Category Percentage of Tax or any other amount payable Percentage of interest associated with tax or any other sum payable as per column (3) Percentage of penalty associated with tax or any other sum payable as per column (3) 1. Admitted Tax 100% 0% 0% 2. Disputed Tax * 30% in case of tax amount equal to or less than Rs. 50 lacs * 50% in all other cases 0% 0% 3. Undisputed Tax * 40% in case of tax amount less than or equal to Rs. 50 lacs * 60% in all other cases 0% 0% 4. Differential Tax 30% 0% 0% 11. Thus, the amount is payable as above. The question, therefore, arises whether merely because the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... country in the local area. It was also held that the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Act and as such the claim of 24 items was also rejected whereafter the petitioner became liable for payment of the tax. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same was a disputed tax was rejected by issuing order of rejection OTS-5 whereby the authority held that the petitioner had deposited OTS application under disputed tax while it was liable to file OTS-1 application under admitted tax category and liable to pay full amount of Rs. 9,06,32,034/- (100% tax value). 14. The contention that because the case is pending before the Court, the amount of tax required to be paid under the OTS appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
