ARVIND RAO
Many tax payers have been subject to delays in getting refunds for the additional taxes paid by them or on account of the Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS) being more than the tax payable for ayear. In addition to these, with many tax payers opting to file their returns online using the e- filing utility provided by the Income Tax Department ( the Department), the problems relating to non- grant of TDS credits and refunds have raised many folds.
In pursuance to the same, a Chartered Accountant had addressed a letter to the Delhi High court in April 2012 highlighting the various problems faced by the tax payers including mismatch of the TDS credit with the online statement of taxes called Form 26AS and the rectification processes required for the same. He even claimed that various tax payers were being harassed because of the Department’s fault.
The Honourable High Court took judicial notice of the letter and converted it into a Public Interest Litigation ( PIL), thereby, directing the Department to the queries raised by the CA in the letter along with other queries that the Court had raised in this matter. The department in its detailed reply did accept that tax payers are facing difficulties in receiving credit of TDS and refund on account of adjustments towards arrears.
The Honourable High Court took notice of all the points raised in the CA’s letter and replies received from the Department and issued certain guidelines to the Department vide its order dated 14th March 2013. The order is a detailed 45 page order, wherein, the Court has given detailed directions to the Department on various matters.
The following paragraphs highlight some of the important points that tax payers need to be aware of.
Wrong or fictitious demand
Post setting- up of the Central Processing Centre ( CPC) at Bengaluru, which handles the processing of the returns filed online by tax payers, the tax officers were required to organise and upload data relating to the demands and refunds due to various tax payers with the CPC in order to facilitate processing of returns filed.
In many cases, tax payers have observed that incorrect and wrong data regarding the demands and refunds get reflected in the assessments made by the CPC in response to the returns filed. The Court observed that the Department had issued a circular in which the burden has been put on the tax payer to approach their tax officers to get the records updated and corrected by following the Rectification process.
The Court also noted that it is not right on the Department’s part to expect the tax payers to follow the rectification process, as it entails substantial expenses and also defeats the main purpose behind computerisation of records.
requests for has to be closed by a proper order and also communicated to the tax payer.
Adjustment of refunds
Under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, in case the tax officer wants to adjust the refund due to a tax payer with any demands pending against him; a prior intimation to the tax payer needs to be given. The Court observed that this process is not being followed at the CPC level, since the computers itself adjust the refund due against the existing demand. The Court, in its order, has directed that the Department has to follow the prescribed procedure and give the tax payer an opportunity to file a reply which has to be considered by the tax officer before the same is adjusted.
Non- grant of credit for TDS
The Court observed that many tax payers’ claim for TDS credit is rejected in two cases. One where the deductors uploaded wrong particulars of the TDS which has been deducted and paid. Two, where there is a mismatch between the details uploaded by the deductor and the details furnished by the tax payer in his return of income.
The Court has directed that the Department must take suitable remedial steps to avoid unnecessary burden or harassment caused to tax payers. The claim for TDS should not be rejected on the ground that the amounts do not tally with the Form 26AS. It should fix a time limit within which the unmatched challans shall be verified and corrected. The taxpayers as deductees, should not be made to suffer because of faults made by the deductors, as it causes unwarranted harassment and inconvenience to tax payers. Once the payment for the TDS is received by the Department, credit should be given to the tax payer. The tax officer should also take reasonable steps to ensure that the deductor corrects any wrong data uploaded of any tax payer.
Non- Communication of adjusted intimations issued u/ s 143( 1)
Under the provisions of the Act, once a return of income has been filed, the tax officer has to issue an order u/ s 143( 1) of the Act confirming the details filed in the return or to raise any objections / defects in the same.
The non- communication of intimations issued u/ s 143( 1) of the Act, where adjustments on account of rejection of TDS or tax paid has been made, is a matter of grave concern.
The Court has directed that if a TDS or tax credit claim has been rejected on a technicality, but there is no communication to the tax payer of the order u/ s 143( 1); the tax officer cannot enforce the demand created.
The Court, in the concluding paragraphs of the order, has noted that any non- compliance of the directions as issued in the Order; the tax payers will be required to approach the appropriate judicial authority for the appropriate order or direction.
This directive judgement is very useful for tax payers who have been facing the above issues over the past couple of years, but have no idea of the manner in which these grievances can be resolved.
The writer is a certified financial planner
The Delhi High Court has issued directives to help tax payers with refunds
|
ACHAL PRABHALA & KAJAL BHARDWAJ
In September 2007, Arun Kumar*, a serving officer in the Indian Army, was diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukaemia ( CML). For the first three of his years of his treatment, he took the standard prescribed dose of the appropriate medicine, imatinib. Then, owing to a sudden spike in the level of chromosomal abnormality that indicates CML, his doctors switched him to a double dose.
Today, after six years of treatment, his cancer is under control. The average monthly cost of his imatinib intake is about ` 20,000 — and this cost, along with every other aspect of his treatment, is borne by the armed forces — from taxpayer funds. An annual bill of ` 240,000 for medicines for one individual might sound like a lot of money, but Mr Kumar will be lucky if it stays that way.
For one thing, the forces — like all branches of government —procure generic imatinib. If the government were forced to buy imatinib from Novartis, sold under the brand name Glivec, it would be looking at an annual bill of ` 30 lakh for Arun Kumar alone, or roughly 12 times what it is currently paying. For another, Mr Kumar might develop resistance to imatinib, at which point it will stop working against his CML, and he will have to switch to dasatinib, the next- level treatment. Dasatinib was originally launched by Bristol Myers- Squibb ( BMS), which sells it under the brand name Sprycel at an annual cost of ` 18 lakh. There is only one generic version of dasatanib available in India. It is produced by Natco and, at ` 1.1 lakh per year, costs 18 times less — but Natco is currently being sued by BMS for introducing the generic ( the outcome of the case is awaited).
This case is the kind of pricing problem we rarely consider in public policy debates around access to medicines, because we forget the government of India — using your money and ours — is the single largest consumer of medicines in the country. Glivec is offered to over 15,000 patients in the country free of cost through a charitable initiative by Novartis, and this is commendable; but none of the hundreds and thousands of public health facilities managed by the government are beneficiaries of this programme.
Paul Herrling, the global head of corporate research at Novartis is on record as saying, “ 90 per cent of all patients diagnosed with that specific form of leukemia get Glivec free from us from our donation program.” He should spend more time with his colleagues: according to Novartis’ press releases, it is 90 per cent of people using Glivec who get it free. The number of people who need imatinib is far greater than those using Novartis’ product. That number, by Novartis’ own admission, is about 42,000 people, which means 63 per cent of the patients being treated with imatinib are paying for it in one way or another —and this is why price matters.
The Supreme Court’s April 1, 2013 judgment upheld the decision of the Patent Controller to deny Novartis intellectual property protection for Glivec, and this is good for Arun Kumar, good for the country, and good for the market. The judgment, which is clear, detailed and thoughtful — and based on a patent law that happens to be fully compliant with India’s obligations at the WTO — has been enthusiastically dissected by people on all sides of the fence.
In the days since the decision, many commentators have put forward a theory that Novartis and their associates have long endorsed: this decision will have longterm negative consequences for patients in India. Three key predictions emerge: pharmaceutical companies will withhold their newest medicines from India, thus endangering human life in the time it takes for generic production to kick in; these companies will end investment in India for research and development, thus impacting the future of innovation in the country; and the environment created by the Supreme Court decision will be regarded as ‘hostile’, thus preventing us from signing advantageous trade agreements with the rest of the world.
For all the talk, India forms 1.3 per cent of the world’s pharmaceutical market by value. Every one of the 20 most valuable medicines in the US market is available in generic form in India. However, only six of those medicines are marketed here by their originator, and in only 2 of those 20 cases was the originator the first to bring the drug to India. Consider atorvastatin, which Pfizer launched under the brand name Lipitor — the highest selling branded drug of all time. Atorvastatin was approved for use in the US in 1996. To date, the brand has not been launched in India; the market is instead served by 56 companies making generic atorvastatin. Western pharmaceutical companies will not neglect India as a result of the Supreme Court decision: they have already been doing so for several decades. You could say this is precisely the problem, and argue that we need a patent regime they are comfortable with. Fine. Except what we would have then is a situation where Novartis launches Glivec in India on the same date as elsewhere in the world —and also at the same price as elsewhere in the world, with no alternative. For the majority of Indians with CML, having imatinib available at an annual cost of between ` 15 lakh and 30 lakh is equivalent to not having it available at all; neither individuals nor institutions with a public mandate can touch a medicine at that price point. Given the situation, a six- month to one- year time lag, which is what it takes for generic producers to react, is not just a more viable proposition — it’s our only proposition.
Novartis has said that innovation in the country will suffer, and to prove its point has announced it will not invest in R& D in India. This would be a concern if Novartis was going to withdraw anything close to the 16 per cent of its global sales it invests in R& D. As it happens, Novartis India currently invests exactly 0.02 per cent of its turnover in domestic research, which at 800 times less than its global research budget is ` 17 lakh, or the on- road price of afully- loaded Honda Civic — a figure that is among the lowest in the domestic industry, and one which is unlikely to go much higher regardless of our patent regime, because diseases of the poor have no market and are illserved by intellectual property protection anyway.
Novartis India capped several years of steady growth with alast reported annual turnover of ` 708 crore ($ 132 million) and a post- tax profit of ` 146 crore ($ 27 million). These are healthy figures, and nothing to sneeze at: there is money to be made in this market.
Nonetheless, should we be worried that the IndiaEuropean Union free trade agreement is in jeopardy? Yes, but for all the right reasons. The Supreme Court’s decision should give the government pause in moving ahead if, as is reportedly the case, the EU continues to insist on aggressive intellectual property and investment provisions that are far beyond the norm. Our government’s hand is now forced against signing on to provisions that have the potential to undermine public health, which suggests the EU might have to retract some of its more unreasonable demands if it wants to ink the agreement — and this is cause for celebration.
*( Name changed to protect identity)
Achal Prabhala works on access to medicines, and Kajal Bhardwaj is a lawyer who works on HIV, health and human rights
The judgment will save taxpayers’ money without hurting the pharma industry or R& D
A Novartis manufacturing facility in the United States. Novartis India, which has said innovation in the country will
suffer as a result of the court judgment, invests just 0.02 per cent of its turnover in domestic research. REUTERS
|
