https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109969 A concessionary settlement scheme requiring deposit of the settlement amount within a specified time was held to call for strict compliance, because the scheme itself linked timely payment with issuance of the settlement certificate and other conditions. The time-limit was therefore mandatory, and rejection of the settlement applications for delayed deposit was justified. Tax assessment proceedings were treated as distinct from coercive recovery: section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not bar assessment or require prior leave for it, while recovery of assessed tax remained subject to permission of the Company Court or the appellate forum in pending liquidation or sick-company proceedings. Once the sick-company reference was rejected, section 22 protection ceased. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109969 A concessionary settlement scheme requiring deposit of the settlement amount within a specified time was held to call for strict compliance, because the scheme itself linked timely payment with issuance of the settlement certificate and other conditions. The time-limit was therefore mandatory, and rejection of the settlement applications for delayed deposit was justified. Tax assessment proceedings were treated as distinct from coercive recovery: section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not bar assessment or require prior leave for it, while recovery of assessed tax remained subject to permission of the Company Court or the appellate forum in pending liquidation or sick-company proceedings. Once the sick-company reference was rejected, section 22 protection ceased. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109969