TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clared sick under the provision of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short, "the SICA") and IDBI was appointed as operating agency under section 17(3) of the SICA with the direction to arrange for issue of advertisement in respect to change of management and to submit a full tide up scheme for merger. Thereafter, the merger had taken place and in place of OSL the petitioner, M/s. Mirc Electronics Ltd., has come into existence as OSL merged with M/s. Mirc Electronics Ltd. (petitionercompany). Initially, the OSL has been granted an eligibility certificate under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") and the said eligibility certificate was valid up till December 25, 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an order dated November 16, 2005 was passed by BIFR after the merger of the OSL with petitioner's company, which was issued to the petitioner's companyunit situated at Noida through registered post on November 21, 2005, received on November 29, 2005. He further submits that section 4A of the Act provides for exemption from payment of trade tax in certain cases. Sub-section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 4A of the Act, the petitioner's company after receiving the order dated November 16, 2005 issued by the BIFR moved an application on January 16, 2006 before the competent authority for amendment in the eligibility certificate already granted in favour of OSL and valid up till December 25, 2009, which was well within 60 days of succession before opposite-party No. 2, however, the same kept pending at the end of opposite-party No. 2 and no heed whatsoever had been paid in spite of the repeated requests and reminders made in this regard. In the meantime, the assessing authority (opposite party No. 3) had passed an assessment order for the assessment year 2005-06 and by the said order, the benefit of exemption of section 4A of the Act was not granted to the petitioner's company on the ground that the requisite amendments have not been made in the eligibility certificate issued under section 4, in favour of OSL as required under sub-section (2B) of section 4A,; therefore being the successor of the erstwhile company, the petitioner's company (OSL), cannot avail of the said benefit. In view of the said developments, the petitioner's company has filed the present writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts may be made in the eligibility certificate issued by the Joint Commissioner, Upper Chief Executive Officer/Upper Director of Industries, Noida, Sector 20, Noida, Gautambudh Nagar, the said application was well within the statutory period of 60 days as provided therein. However, opposite-party No. 2 without any reasonable or justifiable reasons and contrary to the provisions of law had dismissed the same by the order dated October 22, 2009/November 3, 2009 on the ground that the same had been filed after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation, i.e., 60 days, as given in sub-section (2B) of section 4A of the Act. The said impugned action was taken by the authority concerned treating the date November 16, 2005 passed by the BIFR as the starting point of limitation for moving an application by the petitioner for the purpose in question. He further submits that the same is contrary to law as in the present case the starting point of limitation for moving an application for amendment in the eligibility certificate already issued in favour of OSL will commence from November 29, 2005 when the petitioner-company had received the order dated November 16, 2005 issued by the BIF....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wherein it is held that where a right or liability is created by statute which gives special remedy for enforcing it, that must be availed of as the said statute provides a complete machinery in order to challenge the impugned action taken therein in the statute itself and not under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Karnataka Chemical Industries v. Union of India [2000] 10 SCC 13, the Supreme Court has held that when there is no challenge to the validity of any statutory provision, we see no reason as to why a writ petition should have been filed by-passing the alternative remedy which is provided under the statute. On the short ground we dismiss this appeal, vacate the interim orders, direct the payment of the balance amount of duty along with interest at 15 per cent. per annum with yearly rests. It will be open to the appellant to avail of such statutory remedy as may be available to it. If an appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the Department will take a lenient view in condoning the delay. In the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand [2005] 7 SCC 492, the Supreme Court held that if there is a statutory alternative remed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod of 30 days should be counted from the date of service of the stay order on the assessee and not from the date of the passing of the order. If the Legislature could have intended that the period of 30 days should be counted from the date of the passing of the order, for instance, if the stay order is passed on a particular date but the stay order is not communicated to the assessee for a period of 30 days, it is not expected by the assessee to furnish security within a period of 30 days. In the present case, this fact is not disputed that the assessee deposited the security within a period of 30 days from the date of the service of the said order. In my opinion, the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee has considerable force and while interpreting the limitation of 30 days provided in section 9(3A)(iii), the period of 30 days shall start from the date of the service of the order on the assessee and not from the date of the passing of the order by the appellate court. In view of the said fact, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In view of the abovesaid settled proposition of law, the impugned order dated October 22, 2009/Novemb....