Writ jurisdiction and rehabilitation scheme limits: further tax concessions could not be compelled without departmental consent.

Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 remained available despite repeal of the sick industrial companies regime and the absence of a statutory appeal, because the attempted NCLAT route had been held ultra vires and the repeal did not extinguish existing rights or remedies. A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme was confined to its approved time and framework and did not operate as an indefinite arrangement. Any extension or material modification, especially involving tax concessions, required lawful authority and the concerned department's consent. The modified order only required consideration of further reliefs and did not create a mandatory obligation to grant them. The Income Tax Department was therefore not bound to allow additional concessions beyond the statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable after repeal of the sick industrial companies regime and in the absence of a statutory appeal; (ii) Whether the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme had expired and, if so, whether the modified order could compel the Income Tax Department to grant further concessions.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable after repeal of the sick industrial companies regime and in the absence of a statutory appeal.

Analysis: The availability of a statutory appeal under the repealed enactment did not foreclose recourse to constitutional writ jurisdiction. The attempted appellate route to the NCLAT under the removal of difficulties order had already been held ultra vires, and that view had been accepted by the Supreme Court. The repeal preserved existing rights and orders under the sanctioned scheme, but it did not leave an aggrieved party without a remedy under Articles 226 and 227.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme had expired and, if so, whether the modified order could compel the Income Tax Department to grant further concessions.

Analysis: A rehabilitation scheme under the sick industrial companies statute is meant to secure revival within the period and framework sanctioned for that purpose; it is not an open-ended arrangement continuing indefinitely after the stipulated time. Any extension or material modification required lawful exercise of power and, where concessions from a government department were involved, the department's consent. The modified order of 26.02.2013 only required the department to consider further reliefs and did not impose a mandatory obligation to grant them. The company's own stand before the Board showed that the additional tax relief was discretionary, not binding. In those circumstances, the direction to compel further concessions contrary to the Income-tax Act could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The sanctioned scheme had expired, and the Income Tax Department was not bound to grant the further concessions.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, and no further income tax concessions beyond the statute were required to be granted to the company.

Ratio Decidendi: A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under the sick industrial companies statute operates within its sanctioned time and framework, and further fiscal concessions from a government department cannot be compelled without that department's consent; in the absence of a statutory appeal, writ jurisdiction remains available to challenge such orders.

---