https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357769 Recovery of sales tax dues covered by a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under SICA could not proceed during the scheme's operation without BIFR consent, because Section 22 protected the sick company against recovery action for dues falling within the scheme period. The Court also held that a pending representation seeking waiver or deferment of tax dues under Section 38 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act had to be considered by the competent authority before coercive recovery could continue. In the circumstances, the recovery citations were quashed and the authority was directed to decide the representation before pursuing recovery. en-us Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357769 Recovery of sales tax dues covered by a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under SICA could not proceed during the scheme's operation without BIFR consent, because Section 22 protected the sick company against recovery action for dues falling within the scheme period. The Court also held that a pending representation seeking waiver or deferment of tax dues under Section 38 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act had to be considered by the competent authority before coercive recovery could continue. In the circumstances, the recovery citations were quashed and the authority was directed to decide the representation before pursuing recovery. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357769