https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333618 Protection under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act could not be invoked to stop sales tax recovery unless the petitioner first produced proof of pending BIFR proceedings or an operative rehabilitation scheme before the assessing authority. The petitioner claimed sick-industrial-company status, but no supporting material was filed, and an earlier tribunal direction had also required such proof before any restraint on recovery could operate. On that basis, immediate quashing of the recovery notice was declined. To allow the claim to be substantiated, the notice was kept in abeyance for six weeks, with liberty for the respondents to proceed in accordance with law if no proof was produced. en-us Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:19:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333618 Protection under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act could not be invoked to stop sales tax recovery unless the petitioner first produced proof of pending BIFR proceedings or an operative rehabilitation scheme before the assessing authority. The petitioner claimed sick-industrial-company status, but no supporting material was filed, and an earlier tribunal direction had also required such proof before any restraint on recovery could operate. On that basis, immediate quashing of the recovery notice was declined. To allow the claim to be substantiated, the notice was kept in abeyance for six weeks, with liberty for the respondents to proceed in accordance with law if no proof was produced. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333618