Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refusal by the commercial tax authority to issue declaration Form No. 40 to a sick industrial company, on account of non-payment of entry tax arrears, was barred by section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and entitled the company to a mandamus for issuance of the form.
Analysis: Section 22(1) of the 1985 Act protects a sick industrial company against proceedings for winding up, execution, distress or the like against its properties and against recovery steps that would amount to a positive coercive action by a creditor. The provision is directed to preserving the company's assets during pendency of inquiry or rehabilitation and does not compel a creditor, including the State, to take affirmative steps that may facilitate the company's business. Refusal to issue Form No. 40 did not amount to initiation of proceedings for recovery of tax dues or execution against property; it was, at most, pressure to clear arrears and a denial of a facility that would help the company retain customers.
Conclusion: The refusal to issue Form No. 40 was not hit by section 22(1) of the 1985 Act and no mandamus could be issued to compel its supply.