Coercive withholding of declaration forms for tax arrears is barred as a like process under sick company protection law.

Refusal of Central Sales Tax declaration forms fell within the High Court's jurisdiction because the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal's remit was limited to specified State tax enactments, not a challenge under the Central Sales Tax Act and connected rules. The Court further treated withholding declaration forms to recover sales tax arrears from a sick industrial company as a coercive recovery measure analogous to execution, distress or a like process. It therefore came within the protection of section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and could not be used without the Board's consent, though refusal on other grounds was left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Calcutta High Court retained jurisdiction to decide the challenge concerning refusal of declaration forms under the Central Sales Tax regime, or whether the matter lay exclusively before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal; (ii) whether withholding declaration forms for non-payment of sales tax arrears amounted to execution, distress or a like process against the properties of a sick industrial company under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the Calcutta High Court retained jurisdiction to decide the challenge concerning refusal of declaration forms under the Central Sales Tax regime, or whether the matter lay exclusively before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal.

Analysis: The dispute concerned declaration forms under the Central Sales Tax law, not levy, assessment or collection of tax under a specified State Act. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 was confined to matters relating to tax under specified State enactments. The earlier decision on references under the West Bengal sales tax scheme did not govern this controversy, because the present issue arose under the Central Sales Tax Act and the connected rules. The High Court therefore remained competent to decide the question.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to determine the issue.

Issue (ii): Whether withholding declaration forms for non-payment of sales tax arrears amounted to execution, distress or a like process against the properties of a sick industrial company under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The Court treated the withholding of declaration forms as a coercive measure designed to compel payment of arrears and to affect the company's ability to carry on business. Reading the expressions "execution", "distress" and "the like" in a common context, the Court held that they covered similar methods of recovery of money due from the company. Since refusal of forms on the ground of arrears operated as a pressure tactic and an alternative mode of recovery, it fell within the protective umbrella of section 22(1), unless the Board's consent was obtained. The Court clarified that it was not deciding refusal on any other ground.

Conclusion: Yes. Withholding declaration forms for arrears was a like process hit by section 22(1), and could not be done without the Board's consent.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent that the sales tax authorities were restrained from withholding declaration forms solely because of arrears of sales tax dues, while leaving open the need to seek the Board's consent for such action.

Ratio Decidendi: A coercive statutory refusal of declaration forms intended to compel payment of tax arrears is a process analogous to execution or distress and is barred by section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 unless the Board consents.

---