TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as sick industry vide order dated June 10, 1991. The BIFR sanctioned a rehabilitation package vide order dated September 27, 1996 (annexure P1) in exercise of its powers under section 18(4) read with section 19(3) of the SICA. The case of the petitioner is that this facility was granted in the package by the BIFR for a period of ten years commencing from September 27, 1996 to September 26, 2006. The benefit and concession as granted by the BIFR in the rehabilitation package has the overriding effect over all laws in view of the provisions of section 22 of the SICA. The controversy in the present case, which centers around is that first notices were issued by the respondents for recovery of the sales tax arrears (annexures P3 and P4) for the period 1987-88, thereafter, second notice for the period April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994 were issued and ultimately, the same was included in notice dated May 7, 2004 (annexure P5), and a consolidated notice proposing the recovery of dues from 1984 onwards till December, 2003 was issued to the petitioner. In reply to that the petitionercompany explained that the company is declared as a sick industrial unit and its rehabilitation package has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also admitted that the BIFR sanctioned the rehabilitation scheme under section 18(4) of the SICA on September 27, 1996 for a period of ten years, therefore, the only question which remains for the decision of this Court is that whether in view of section 22(1) of the SICA, the respondents are not entitled to recover the sales tax which has been collected by the petitioners through sale even after the sanction of the rehabilitation scheme under section 18(4) of the SICA. Since the facts are not disputed and reply has been filed by the respondents, and the order disposing of the application will be similar to granting final relief, therefore, this petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 5.. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6.. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that as per the scheme at page 28, the Government of Madhya Pradesh was directed to waive the minimum penal and surcharge levied by the MPEB; to declare the unit as "relief undertaking" for a period of ten years; to defer the sales tax dues till the unit remains as "relief undertaking"; and to grant reliefs and concessions as above within one month of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the appellate authority. (5) In computing the period of limitation for the enforcement of any right, privilege, obligation or liability, the period during which it or the remedy for the enforcement thereof remains suspended under this section shall be excluded." 9.. After interpreting the above provisions, the honourable apex Court in the matter of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals [1997] 105 STC 327; (1997) 10 SCC 649 held that: "The language of section 22 of the Act is certainly wide. But, in the totality of the circumstances, the safeguard is only against the impediment, that is likely to be caused in the implementation of the scheme. If that be so, only the liability or amounts covered by the scheme will be taken in, by section 22 of the Act. So, we are of the view that though the language of section 22 of the Act is of wide import regarding suspension of legal proceedings from the moment an inquiry is started, till after the implementation of the scheme or the disposal of an appeal under section 25 of the Act, it will be reasonable to hold that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 327; (1997) 10 SCC 649. 11.. Therefore, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to recover the sales tax, which has been collected by the petitioner-company after September 27, 1996. However, any sales tax collected prior to that stands deferred as per the sanctioned scheme dated September 27, 1996. 12.. Now, coming to the question as to how much amount is recoverable out of the total amount said to be recoverable as per the respondent's case i.e., Rs. 3,68,94,998. The total figures have been shown by the respondents in annexure R1 and as per their own admission, since 2000-01, the return submitted by the petitioners is pending for scrutiny and no assessment order has been passed. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is held that till 1999 up to which period the assessment has been made, the respondents are entitled to recover the assessed sales tax amount with effect from September 28, 1996 up to the year 1999 as per the sales tax collected by the petitioners. However, from the year 2000, in the first instance, the respondents shall collect the sales tax from the petitioners as per the admission of the petitioners, which has been....