Good Health Can’t Wait.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Good Health Can’t Wait. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (All amounts in Indian Rupees millions, except share data and where otherwise stated) 2.25: CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND COMMITMENTS (CONTINUED) (e) Fuel surcharge adjustment The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (the “APERC”) has passed various orders approving the levy of Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (“FSA”) charges for the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2013 by power distribution companies from all the consumers of electricity in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India. The Company filed separate writs petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (the “High Court”) challenging and questioning the validity and legality of this levy of FSA charges by the APERC for various periods. The Company, after taking into account all of the available information and legal provisions, has recorded an amount of ` 215 as the potential liability towards FSA charges. The total amount approved by APERC for collection by the power distribution companies from the Company in respect of FSA charges for the period from 1April2008 to 31 March2013 is approximately ` 473. As of 31March2015, the Company has paid, under protest, an amount of ` 349 demanded by the power distribution companies as part of monthly electricity bills. The Company remains exposed to additional financial liability should the orders passed by the APERC be upheld by the Courts. (f) Land pollution The Indian Council for Environmental Legal Action filed a writ in 1989 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India and others in the Supreme Court of India for the safety of people living in the Patancheru and Bollarum areas of Medak district of the then existing undivided state of Andhra Pradesh. The Company has been named in the list of polluting industries. In 1996, the Andhra Pradesh District Judge proposed that the polluting industries compensate farmers in the Patancheru, Bollarum and Jeedimetla areas for discharging effluents which damaged the farmers’ agricultural land. The compensation was fixed at ` 0.0013 per acre for dry land and ` 0.0017 per acre for wet land. Accordingly, the Company has paid a total compensation of ` 3. The Company believes that the possibility of additional liability is remote. The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition on 12 February 2013 and transferred the case to the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”), Chennai, India. The interim orders passed in the writ petitions will continue until the matter is decided by the NGT. (g) Water pollution and air pollution During the year ended 31 March 2012, the Company, along with 14 other companies, received a notice from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (“APP Control Board”) to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against them for violations under the Indian Water Pollution Act and the Indian Air Pollution Act. Furthermore, the APP Control Board issued orders to the Company to (i) stop production of all new products at the Company’s manufacturing facilities in Hyderabad, India without obtaining a “Consent for Establishment”, (ii) cease manufacturing products at such facilities in excess of certain quantities specified by the APP Control Board and (iii) furnish a bank guarantee to assure compliance with the APP Control Board’s orders. The Company appealed the APP Control Board orders to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Appellate Board (“the APP Appellate Board”). The APP Appellate Board, on the basis of a report of a fact-finding advisory committee, recommended to the Andhra Pradesh Government to allow expansion of units fully equipped with Zero-Liquid Discharge (“ZLD”) facilities and otherwise found no fault with the Company (on certain conditions). The APP Appellate Board’s decision was challenged by one of the petitioners in the National Green Tribunal and the matter is currently pending before it. Separately, the Andhra Pradesh Government, following recommendations of the APP Appellate Board, published a notification in July 2013 that allowed expansion of production of all types of existing bulk drug and bulk drug intermediate manufacturing units subject to the installation of ZLD facilities and the outcome of cases pending in the National Green Tribunal. Importantly, the notification directed pollution load of industrial units to be assessed at the point of discharge (if any) as opposed to point of generation. In September 2013, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, based on the revised Comprehensive Environment Pollution Index issued a notification that re-imposed a moratorium on expansion of industries in certain areas where some of the Company’s manufacturing facilities are located. This notification overrides the Andhra Pradesh Government’s notification that conditionally permitted expansion. (h) Assessable value of products supplied by a vendor to the Company During the year ended 31March2003, the Central Excise Authorities of India (“the Central Excise Authorities”) issued a demand notice to a vendor of the Company regarding the assessable value of products supplied by this vendor to the Company. The Company has been named as a co-defendant in this demand notice. The Central Excise Authorities demanded payment of ` 176 from the vendor, including penalties of `90. Through the same notice, the Central Excise Authorities issued a penalty claim of ` 70 against the Company. During the year ended 31 March 2005, the Central Excise Authorities issued an additional notice to this vendor demanding ` 226 from the vendor, including a penalty of ` 51. Through the same notice, the Central Excise Authorities issued a penalty claim of ` 7 against the Company. Furthermore, during the year ended 31 March 2006, the Central Excise Authorities issued an additional notice to this vendor demanding ` 34. The Company filed appeals against these notices with the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the “CESTAT”). In October 2006, the CESTAT passed an order in favour of the Company setting aside all of the above demand notices. In July 2007, the Central Excise Authorities appealed against CESTAT’s order in the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. The matter is pending in the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. 138
Standalone Financial Statements Annual Report 2014 - 15 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (All amounts in Indian Rupees millions, except share data and where otherwise stated) 2.25: CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND COMMITMENTS (CONTINUED) (i) Distribution of input service tax credits The Central Excise Authorities have issued various show cause notices to the Company objecting to the Company’s methodology of distributing input service tax credits claimed for one of the Company’s facilities. The below table shows the details of such show cause notices and the consequential actions on and status of the same. Period covered under the notice Amount demanded Status March 2008 to September 2009 ` 102 plus penalties of `102 and interest thereon The Company has filed an appeal before the CESTAT. October 2009 to March 2011 ` 125 plus penalties of `100 and interest thereon The Company has filed an appeal before the CESTAT. April 2011 to March 2012 ` 51 plus interest and penalties The Company has responded to such show cause notice and is currently awaiting a hearing with the Central Excise Commissioner. April 2012 to March 2013 ` 54 plus interest and penalties The Company has responded to such show cause notice and is currently awaiting a hearing with the Central Excise Commissioner. April 2013 to March 2014 ` 69 plus interest and penalties The Company has responded to such show cause notice and is currently awaiting a hearing with the Central Excise Commissioner. The Company believes that the possibility of any liability that may arise on account of the alleged inappropriate distribution of input service tax credits is not probable. (j) Value Added Tax (“VAT”) matter The Company received various show cause notices from the Government of Telangana’s Commercial Taxes Department objecting to the Company’s methodology of calculation of VAT input credit. The below table shows the details of each of such show cause notices and the consequential actions on and status of the same. Period covered under the notice Amount demanded Status April 2006 to March 2009 ` 66 plus 10% penalty The Company has filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. April 2009 to March 2011 ` 59 plus 10% penalty The Company has filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. April 2011 to March 2013 ` 86 plus 10% penalty The Company has filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The Company believes that the possibility of any liability that may arise on account of the allegedly inappropriate claims to VAT credits is not probable. Additionally, the Company is in receipt of various show cause notices from the Indian Sales Tax authorities. The disputed amount is ` 43. The Company has responded to such show cause notices and believes that the chances of any liability arising from such notices are less than probable. Accordingly, no provision is made in the Company’s financial statements as at 31 March 2015. (k) Direct tax matter During the year ended 31 March 2014, the Indian Income Tax authorities disallowed for tax purposes certain business transactions entered into by the parent company with its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The associated tax impact is ` 570. The Company believes that such business transactions are allowed for tax deduction under Indian Income Tax laws and has accordingly filed an appeal with the Income Tax Appellate Authorities. The Company further believes that the probability of succeeding in this matter is more likely than not and therefore no provision was made in the Company’s financial statements as of 31 March 2015. Additionally, the Company is contesting various other disallowances by the Indian Income Tax authorities. The associated tax impact is ` 611. The Company believes that the chances of an unfavorable outcome in each of such disallowances are less than probable and accordingly, no provision is made in the Company’s financial statements as of 31 March 2015. (l) Additionally, the Company is involved in other disputes, lawsuits, claims, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquiries, investigations and proceedings, including patent and commercial matters that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. Except as discussed above, the Company does not believe that there are any such contingent liabilities that are expected to have any material adverse effect on its financial statements. (B) Commitments: Estimated amount of contracts remaining to be executed on capital account and not provided for (net of advances) 4,019 2,652 139
Page 1 and 2:
ANNUAL REPORT 2014-15 Good Health C
Page 3 and 4:
Our Brand We are in the business of
Page 5 and 6:
Corporate Overview Annual Report 20
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Statutory Reports • Business Resp
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Statutory Reports • Management Di
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Statutory Reports • Corporate Gov
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Statutory Reports • Additional Sh
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Statutory Reports • Board’s Rep
Page 89 and 90: Statutory Reports • Board’s Rep
Page 111 and 112: Standalone Financial Statements Ann
Page 139: Standalone Financial Statements Ann
Page 165 and 166: Consolidated Financial Statements A
Page 191 and 192:
Consolidated Financial Statements A
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Notice Annual Report 2014 - 15 NOTI
Page 229 and 230:
E-Voting Annual Report 2014 - 15 IN
Page 231:
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited
Page 235 and 236:
The future belongs, not to those wh
show all

Good Health Can’t Wait.

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?