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, during pendency of proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, the revenue could proceed to recover sales tax dues by issuing the impugned notice.
Analysis: Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 creates a statutory bar against recovery proceedings against a sick industrial company when an inquiry, scheme, or appeal is pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The Court held that the amount demanded under the impugned notice could not be recovered in view of the pending BIFR proceedings, and that the revenue's remedy was to implead itself before the BIFR and seek appropriate permission. The Court found the reliance placed on the contrary precedent to be inapplicable on the facts, since the demand arose in the context of the company's continuing BIFR process and default under a deferral arrangement.
Conclusion: The impugned tax recovery notice was unsustainable and could not be enforced during the pendency of the BIFR proceedings; the writ petition was therefore allowed in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: When proceedings before BIFR are pending in respect of a sick industrial company, section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars coercive recovery of dues unless consent is obtained from BIFR.