Deemed consent under SICA fails where the State expressly withholds consent, defeating Entry Tax exemption under the scheme.

Deemed consent under Section 19(2) of SICA arises only where no response is communicated within the prescribed time; an express statement by the State's representative that there was no policy to grant relief amounted to non-consent, so the sanctioned scheme SS-08 was not binding on the State for the disputed Entry Tax exemption. The earlier order disposing of the enforcement application was final and the scheme was time-bound up to 2014, so no exemption could be claimed after that disposal. The later notification did not revive an unavailable claim, and the request for exemption before the NCLT was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to claim tax exemption after disposal of MA No. 442/2011 on 16.08.2011; (ii) whether the sanctioned scheme SS-08 was deemed to have been consented to by the State of Orissa under Section 19(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; (iii) whether the appellant made out a case before the NCLT for a direction granting exemption from payment of Entry Tax till 2014 under the sanctioned scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to claim tax exemption after disposal of MA No. 442/2011 on 16.08.2011

Analysis: The relief sought in MA No. 442/2011 included a direction to the State for implementation of the unimplemented provisions of the sanctioned scheme, but the BIFR only discharged the company from the purview of SICA and did not grant the requested enforcement relief. The order of 16.08.2011 was not challenged within limitation and therefore attained finality. The sanctioned scheme was also time-bound and ran only up to 2014.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to claim tax exemption after disposal of MA No. 442/2011 on 16.08.2011.

Issue (ii): Whether the sanctioned scheme SS-08 was deemed to have been consented to by the State of Orissa under Section 19(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985

Analysis: Deemed consent under Section 19(2) applies where no consent is communicated within the prescribed time. Here, the State's representative appeared before the BIFR during the objections hearing and expressly stated that the Government had no policy to grant relief to sick companies. That statement was treated as a clear denial of consent. The cited precedents on deemed consent were held distinguishable on their facts.

Conclusion: The sanctioned scheme SS-08 was not deemed to have been consented to by the State of Orissa under Section 19(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant made out a case before the NCLT for a direction granting exemption from payment of Entry Tax till 2014 under the sanctioned scheme

Analysis: Since the State had not consented to the relevant relief in the scheme, the Entry Tax exemption clause was not enforceable against it. The earlier High Court order merely required the NCLT to decide the pending application according to law and did not decide the merits. The subsequent notification of 24.05.2017 did not revive a time-barred or otherwise unavailable claim, and the application was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The appellant did not make out a case before the NCLT for a direction granting exemption from payment of Entry Tax till 2014 under the sanctioned scheme.

Final Conclusion: The sanctioned scheme could not be enforced against the State for the claimed Entry Tax relief, the challenged order was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Deemed consent under Section 19(2) arises only where no response is communicated within the prescribed period; an express communication of non-consent prevents the scheme from becoming binding on the State for the disputed relief.

---