Sony INDIA Private Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order/judgment
CWP N
were rejected respectively in 2. being taken as subsidiary of coloured telev Haryana facili and sale of e phones and co was granted t forefront of te promulgated t 05.05.2000 an the value of th where there w of not being ab No. 8700 of 2 the State Legi 2000 (hereinaf in respect of t branch transfe 3. and 07.01.200 30.06.2000, 30 The petitioner for the assessment years 2000 n the three writ petitions hereinab For the purpose of adjudicatio s a lead case. The petitioner sta Sony Group Corporation, Japan visions and audio products at ity. It has further expanded trad electronics, including video ca omputer monitors. The approval to establish a 100% subsidiary chnological innovation in India. the Haryana Local Area Develo nd tax on entry of goods in the lo he goods. The tax was to be im was earlier octroi leviable or not. ble to sell its finished products w 2000 challenging vires of the O islature passed the Haryana Loc fter to be referred as ‘the HLAD hose goods which the petitioner ers or by way of export sales out The petitioner was served with 02 calling upon it to file retur 0.09.2000, 31.12.2000, 31.03.20 r preferred CWP No. 770 of 20 -2- 0-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, bove. on CWP No. 27711 of 2024 is ates itself to be a wholly owned n, engaged in manufacturing of its former factory Dharuhera, ding activities in manufacturing meras, recording media, GSM l from the Government of India y and states itself to be at the The Haryana State Government opment Tax Ordinance, 2000 on ocal area was imposed @ 4% of mposed irrespective of the areas The petitioner feeling aggrieved within the State, preferred CWP Ordinance. During the pendency, cal Area Development Tax Bill, DT’). The tax was imposed only r sent out of Haryana by way of of India. h two notices dated 31.12.2001 rns for the quarters ending on 001, 30.06.2001 and 30.09.2001. 002 which was disposed by this , s d f , g M a e t n f s d P , , y f
n . s VARINDER SINGH 2024.12.05 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment
CWP N
Court vide or should make r the notification the petitioner, as used in the no. 66 dated 0 with a memor for industries another CWP earlier writ pe declined any in 4. judgment asse 2002-till 30.06 rder dated 04.03.2002 with the representation to the State Gov n dated 05.05.2000. Upon such wherein it claimed that compon IT industry and, therefore, be g 05.05.2000, for exemption but i randum issued on 20.05.2002 sta and not for any specific raw m No. 8355 of 2002. The same w etition was declared as having b nterim relief to the petitioner and “After hearing the and having gone through that the issue involved in only at the time of fina While declining to gra petitioner, we direct that hearing on 19.1.2004. We, however, m proceedings taken by the made by the petitioner, if writ petition will be sub passed by this Court.” The Assessing Authority has essment on 19.08.2002 for the y 6.2002. However, the same were -3- observation that the petitioner ernment seeking amendment of a representation being made by nents being used by it are same given the benefit of notification its representation was answered ating that the exemption is only material. The petitioner preferred was admitted by this Court. The become infructuous. This Court d clarified as under:- learned counsel for the parties h the record, we are of the view the writ petition can be resolved al hearing of the writ petition. ant any interim relief to the the writ petition be set down for make it clear that all the e respondents and all deposits f any, during the pendency of the bject to the final orders to be issued fresh notices for best years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and e withdrawn. r f y e n d y d e t s w d
e r e s e e t d VARINDER SINGH 2024.12.05 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment
CWP N
notice on 03.0 under the HLA petitioner. The Court wherein the authority. Court granted CWP No. 756 aforesaid back promulgated H and the Sche petitioner app 2002-2003 an installment. It Tax Category. informing that admitted tax i total amount. 6. in CWP No. 8 and all deposit petition were amount of tax disputed and t the tax to be p Keeping in view the facts as a 04.2003 demanding tax for the p ADT Act of a sum of Rs. 21,30,7 ereafter, the petitioner filed CW n this Court directed the petition The representation was ultimate liberty to the petitioner to amen 3 of 2003 was disposed of as ha kdrop, the petitioner has stated Haryana One Time Settlement o eme for recovery of outstandin plied for assessment for the ye nd deposited 40% of the tot filed the application disputing th . The petitioner was, however, t as per the OTS-1 application, t instead of disputed tax as it wo Learned counsel for the petition 355 of 2002 had stated all proce ts made by the petitioner, if any, subject to final orders to be p x being claimed against the p the respondents could not have aid as admitted tax. -4- above, respondent no.4 issued a period 2000-2001 to 2002-2003 76,273/-. Reply was filed by the WP No. 7563 of 2003 before this ner to move a representation to ely rejected on 16.07.2003. The nd the CWP No. 8355 of 2002. aving become infructuous. In the that the State Government had of Outstanding Dues Act, 2017 ng dues of 2023 wherein the ars 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and tal settlement amount as first he entire tax under the Disputed served with a deficiency notice the amount was to be treated as uld have to deposit 40% of the ner submits that since this Court eedings taken by the respondents during the pendency of the writ passed by this Court, the entire petitioner has to be treated as rejected its application treating a 3 e s o e . e d 7 e d t d e s e t s t e s g VARINDER SINGH 2024.12.05 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment
CWP N
has relied on Pradesh and o SCC 815; Gov 129 STC 534; Movers Privat 8. 9. 2(e) of the OT Learned counsel for the petition judgments of Hon’ble the Sup 21) 5 SCC 602; State of U. 1989) 2 SCC 505; Superinten 4 (267) ITR 705; Madras High ssistant Commissioner (CT), Ce 126 STC 449; Division Bench j ; and Loyalty Solutions and Res te Limited (2021) 87 GSTR 455,
We have considered the submiss The OTS Scheme defines vario TS Scheme are as under:- “2 (a) “admitted tax” m admitted in return b xx
2 (e) “disputed tax” mean admitted tax, differe -5- 978) 3 SCC 113; Bombay High Mumbai vs M/s Apar Limited, h Court in E.I.D. Parry (India) entral Assessment Circle-I and judgments of this Court in Smt. ome-Tax (1997) 223 ITR 242; but not paid or short paid; xx
xx ns any amount of tax other than ential tax or undisputed tax.” s r 7 n a i , h , ) d
; )
d s n VARINDER SINGH 2024.12.05 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment
CWP N
outstanding du amount in lie Schedule-1 tal concerned cate 1 2 Serial Number Cate
Adm Tax
Disp Tax
Und Tax
Diff Tax 11. arises whether relief, made o and deposits m Court, can it b
Scheme where without prejud As per Clause 4.1, an appli ues under the Scheme shall have eu of his outstanding dues as lks of following tax which is re egory of tax:- 3 4 egory Percentage of Tax or any other amount payable Percent interest with t other s as per c mitted 100% 0 puted * 30% in case of tax amount equal to or less than Rs.50 lacs * 50% in all other cases 0 disputed * 40% in case of tax amount less than or equal to Rs.50 lacs * 60% in all other cases 0 ferential 30% 0 Thus, the amount is payable as r merely because the High Cou observations that all the proceed made by the petitioner, would b be said that the entire amount was The petitioner, therefore, moved ein it filed two returns in Form dice. It is submitted by learned c -6- cant opting for settlement of e to pay by way of settlement an mentioned in Schedule-1. The equired to be payable as per the 4 5 tage of t associated tax or any sum payable column (3) Percentage of penalty associated with tax or any other sum payable as per column (3) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% above. The question, therefore, urt had while declining interim dings taken by the respondents be subject to final order of this s a disputed tax. d an application under the OTS m DT-3. The returns were filed counsel for the petitioner that for f n e e f d y e , m s s S d r VARINDER SINGH 2024.12.05 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment
CWP N
the assessmen returns in two Under Scener claiming it as Scenerio-2, th local areas exc goods importe purchased wi Section 5 of th 24 items of ra information an rejected both Scenerio-2 an manufactured local area. It w under Section rejected where 13. same was a d whereby the a under ‘dispute ‘admitted tax (100% tax valu
Court, the amo nt year 2000-2001, the petitione sets, terming them as Scenerio-1 rio-1, the company had shown wholly exempted from tax unde he company had reflected figur cluding amount on account of co ed out of India and Central Ex ithin India. Thereafter, the de he Act and exemption under Sec aw material imported in local are nd technology products. The con the returns filed by the pe nd held that the entry tax is lev or produced within State or imp was also held that the assessee is n 11 of the Act and as such th eafter the petitioner became liabl The contention of the learned co disputed tax was rejected by iss authority held that the petitioner ed tax’ while it was liable to ’ category and liable to pay f ue). The contention that because t ount of tax required to be paid un -7- er had submitted two quarterly 1 and Scenerio-2 on 03.10.2003. no liability of payment of tax r Section 11 of the Act, while in res on account of purchases in ounter billing duty applicable on xcise Duty applicable on goods eductions were claimed under ction 11 of the Act on account of ea terming them as consumed in ncerned assessing authority had etitioner under Scenerio-1 and vied on Scheduled goods either ported outside the country in the s not entitled to claim exemption he claim of 24 items was also le for payment of the tax. ounsel for the petitioner that the suing order of rejection OTS-5 r had deposited OTS application o file OTS-1 application under full amount of ` 9,06,32,034/- the case is pending before the nder the OTS application should y . x n n n s r f n d d r e n o e 5 n r - e d VARINDER SINGH 2024.12.05 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment
CWP N
be treated as hereinabove. T than admitted means, ‘any a Since the orde payment ` 9, category of ad 15. in the categor application is of this Court t subject to fina Since the petit treated to be a 16. petition is dism that the petitio same would, allowed, the p 17. as mentioned bearing to the only with reg authorities, in than what was disputed as tax is wholly misc The definition of ‘disputed tax’ m tax, differential tax or undispute amount of tax as admitted in ret er was passed in the year 2004 ,06,32,034/-, it would have to dmitted tax. The petitioner’s claim that the ry of disputed tax, may be cons wholly misconceived and canno that all the payments which the p al outcome ‘is merely a reiterat tioner was not granted any inter dmitted tax to be paid by the pet We may also notice that if u missed, it would be the amount w oner would have to deposit and i therefore, be considered. How etitioner can always claim refun Learned counsel has stressed on in its returns filed in 2003. H e present issue involved in the gard to the OTS Scheme. In rejecting the application on the s required to be paid, cannot be -8- conceived, as has been noticed means, ‘any amount of tax other ed tax’, while the ‘admitted tax’ turn but not paid or short paid’. holding the petitioner liable for o be treated to fall within the amount, which it has deposited sidered for considering the OTS ot be sustained. The mere stating petitioner has to make would be ting the theory of lis pendens’. rim relief, the amount has to be titioner in full. ultimately the petitioner’s writ which has been already assessed in One Time Settlement also the wever, if the writ petition is d. n the words ‘without prejudice’, However, they would have no present writ petitions, which is our view, the decision of the e basis of the amount being less said to be unjustified or illegal. d r
. r e d S g e
e t d e s , o s e s . VARINDER SINGH 2024.12.05 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment king/reasoned
rtable
-9- sit the remaining amount, if it so eating it as an ‘admitted tax’. ons, all the writ petitions are l the writ petitions shall stand NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE Yes Yes o e d VARINDER SINGH 2024.12.05 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.