The Jharkhand High Court has directed the dept. to refund Rs. 45.60 Lakh to Tata Cummins realized in excess under the Amnesty Scheme.
The bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that due to incorrect application of the Settlement Scheme, petitioner is denied its actual benefit resulting into a loss of Rs. 45,60,000 ( Rs. 2,79,06,859.70 – Rs.2,33,46,859.70) to petitioner.
The bench noted that even in tax statutes, exemption provisions should be liberally considered in accordance with the object sought to be achieved. In a beneficial legislation, literal formulistic interpretation should be eschewed to give full effect to the provisions of the beneficial legislation.
The petitioner, Tata Cummins is a Joint Venture Company formed by and between Tata Motors Limited and Cummins Inc USA having its date of commercial production as on 01.01.1996, and, is engaged primarily in manufacturing/assembling of high speed diesel engines for automotive applications including diesel engines for industrial, power generation and CNG applications.
The present writ petition relates to the dispute of the financial year 2003-04 under Bihar Finance Act, 1981. For the period in dispute, an assessment order was passed by assessing officer, wherein claim of the petitioner regarding exemption from payment of additional tax and surcharge was rejected and, consequently, as against admitted liability of Rs. 5,17,39,669, total tax liability of Rs. 12,89,71,279 was determined.
The petitioner preferred a writ petition and it is an admitted fact that during the stage of adjudication proceedings, an amount of Rs. 76,00,000 was deposited by the petitioner to the state exchequer as pre-deposit.
The State of Jharkhand formulated an Amnesty Scheme namely, “Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Act, 2022” (Amnesty Scheme) and even Rules for giving effect to the scheme was formulated namely, ‘Jharkhand Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Rules, 2023’
The 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 while filing online application form suo-motu computation of the benefit under Amnesty Scheme was determined.
The petitioner submitted that under Amnesty Scheme, provisions were incorporated for giving waiver of disputed tax to the extent of 60% of the disputed amount and the term ‘admitted tax’ and ‘disputed amount’ is defined under Amnesty Scheme itself vide Section 2(i) and 2(viii).
The petitioner submitted that Section 3 of the Amnesty Scheme clearly provided, inter alia, that the amount of waiver was to be calculated being the difference between the tax component of assessed tax and the amount of tax already paid. The amount of tax already paid is the amount of admitted tax paid by an assessee and would not include any amount pertaining to disputed tax which has been paid either as pre-deposit or as condition of stay, etc.
The court held that order of settlement to the extent of pre-deposit of 76,00,000 has been directed to be adjusted from the amount in dispute before extending the benefit of settlement is set aside.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s. Tata Cummins Private Limited Versus The State of Jharkhand
Case No.: W.P.(T) No. 2204 of 2024
Date: 12 /02/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Sumeet Kumar Gadodia
Counsel For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Yadav
