Maruti Suzuki India has called for an amnesty scheme or ‘as-is’ settlement for old indirect tax disputes, aiming to help the auto industry move forward and focus on growth amidst ongoing litigation and recent GST reforms.
Maruti Suzuki India has urged the central government to consider an amnesty scheme or an “as-is” settlement for legacy indirect tax disputes, arguing that the auto industry needs a cleaner break from old litigation to focus on growth. Speaking at the third Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers Automotive Tax Conference, chief financial officer Arnab Roy said businesses needed a “smarter way to address the past” now that recent GST reforms have given them more room to plan ahead.
Roy said an amnesty mechanism would help companies clear old cases by paying the tax due while potentially waiving interest and penalties, while an “as-is” approach would leave earlier filings undisturbed and prevent retrospective demands. His comments come as Maruti Suzuki and its wholly owned subsidiary, Suzuki Motor Gujarat, continue to face a series of tax disputes, including demands upheld by authorities in Gujarat and Haryana over reverse-charge GST liabilities on certain services for periods stretching from July 2017 to August 2022.
The call also comes against the backdrop of the government’s own amnesty framework under GST. According to tax advisers, Section 128A of the CGST Act and Rule 164 were introduced to provide relief from interest and penalty for certain demands linked to the early GST period, from July 1, 2017, to March 31, 2020, with subsequent clarifications issued to resolve practical issues around compliance and eligibility. A separate report by Economic Times Auto said Suzuki Motor Gujarat recently secured permission to partially withdraw an appeal so it could pursue an amnesty application under that provision.
Roy also praised what he described as GST 2.0 reforms, saying the uniform tax rate on auto parts had supported demand without choking supply chains. He said the industry had grown by 25% and pressed for a similar single-rate structure for customs duties. He further argued that input tax credit should move seamlessly across state GST registrations, saying the current system ties up working capital and creates needless paperwork for manufacturers with large plants in multiple locations.
Beyond tax rates, Roy called for tighter alignment between the Companies Act and tax law, clearer guidance on GST input tax credits and product classification, and broader use of advance pricing agreements to cover transfer pricing, customs and GST. He also urged the creation of independent appellate review systems and more regular government-industry forums outside the courts, while encouraging tax teams to become part of business planning from the start rather than being brought in only after disputes arise.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to inform and educate, not to recommend or endorse any financial product, investment or strategy. Please consider your own financial circumstances and seek professional advice where appropriate before making financial decisions.
