Court dismisses challenge to instalment order under Indian Constitution, emphasizes correct procedure for objections.

The court dismissed the challenge to the order granting instalments under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It was found that the demand notice issued after the registration of the case before BIFR was valid as the case was not registered at the time of the Commissioner's order. The petitioner was advised to file objections and approach the concerned authority properly. The court emphasized the importance of following the correct procedure for filing objections and granted liberty to the petitioner to do so, with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order granting instalments under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India; Validity of demand notice issued after registration of case before BIFR; Proper procedure for filing objections before the concerned authority.

Analysis:
In this case, the petitioner, an assessee, challenged an order granting instalments passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax. The petitioner contended that after the order was passed, their case was registered before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The petitioner argued that due to the registration before the BIFR, the money could not be recovered, and the demand notice issued was invalid. However, it was revealed that at the time of the Commissioner's order, the case was not registered before the BIFR. The court emphasized that the petitioner could have applied for modification of the order or filed objections after the case was registered before the BIFR. The court highlighted that it was the Commissioner's responsibility to consider the consequences of the BIFR's order under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The petitioner was advised to approach the concerned authority with proper objections for consideration, as the procedure followed was not deemed appropriate.

The petitioner admitted that they had not filed any objection before the Commissioner after the BIFR's order. The court stressed the importance of filing proper objections before the appropriate authority. The court disposed of the petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, file necessary objections, and request their consideration. It was emphasized that any objections filed should be decided by the concerned authority in accordance with the law. The petitioner was also given the option to request a stay before the concerned authority. The court concluded by directing the petitioner to follow the proper procedure for filing objections before the relevant authority and disposed of the petition with no order as to costs.

---