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 the petitioner was entitled to enforcement of the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme and continuation of CST exemption despite the repeal of SICA and abatement of pending proceedings, and whether the tax demands could be quashed.
Analysis: The sanctioned scheme and the interim protections granted in the BIFR proceedings could not survive once the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 came into force and pending proceedings abated by statutory operation. The Court also noted that the order earlier passed in the petitioner's favour had already been set aside in appellate proceedings and that no enforceable right remained to insist on continuance of the exemption. In these circumstances, the writ court found no basis to interfere with the tax demands or to grant relief on the strength of the extinguished SICA proceedings.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the petitioner was held not entitled to any relief in respect of the claimed CST exemption or the impugned demands.
Ratio Decidendi: Once SICA proceedings abate on repeal, interim and ancillary benefits flowing from those proceedings do not survive unless independently preserved by law.