Writ relief and SICA protection do not bar recovery of current sales tax dues where the assessee is not genuinely sick.

Writ relief under Article 226 was held unavailable against a statutory notice for sales tax dues where the assessee had repeatedly defaulted and used litigation to delay recovery. The Court stated that section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not protect current tax liabilities when the company was not shown to be closed, presently sick, or under revival proceedings, and was carrying on business. It further observed that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to aid tax evasion or to secure instalments merely as an indulgence. The challenge to the sales tax notice therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against the statutory notice for sales tax dues, and whether section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred recovery of the current tax dues.

Analysis: The petition challenged the statutory notice issued for sales tax dues under section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Court noted that the petitioner had repeatedly defaulted in payment of taxes and had used litigation to delay recovery, including failure to comply with directions to pay current dues. The Court further held that section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not assist the petitioner in respect of current sales tax liabilities, as the company was not shown to be closed, presently sick, or in revival proceedings, and was carrying on a prosperous business. In these circumstances, the Court found that writ jurisdiction could not be used to facilitate evasion or to grant instalments as a matter of indulgence.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to any relief in writ jurisdiction, and the challenge to the sales tax notice failed.

---