Haryana OTS Acts: Disputed tax deposits must be treated as admitted tax requiring full payment without interim relief

The HC dismissed writ petitions challenging rejection of one-time settlement applications under Haryana OTS Acts of 2017 and 2023. Petitioner claimed disputed tax status for deposited amounts based on HC's previous observations that proceedings would be subject to final order. HC held that without interim relief, amounts must be treated as admitted tax requiring full payment. The court clarified its earlier observations merely reflected lis pendens principle. Authorities' rejection of OTS applications for insufficient payment amounts was justified. Petitioner advised to deposit remaining amounts treating them as admitted tax if pursuing OTS applications further.

---

---

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.

---