TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtue of Section 5 of the SICA (Appeal) Act and retains its binding effect and hence exemption under CST shall be available for 9 years w.e.f. 20.05.2002 as envisaged in para 4.7 of the Scheme. 7.2 to hold that the letter dated 04.08.2007 moved on behalf of the Commissioner of Commercial Tax Madhya Pradesh before BIFR to discontinue the benefit of exemption under CST is illegal, void and without any jurisdiction and is contrary to the provisions of SICA Act. 7.3 to quash the demands raised under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the period 2007-08, 200809 and 2010-11. 7.4 to grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Facts of the case are that a Scheme of revival of sick company M/s. Rajshree Plastiwood Limited (now merged with M/s. Rajshree Plastiwood - A division of M/s. Rajshree Productions Private Limited) was sanctioned by the Board of Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) vide its order dated 20.05.2002 (Annexure P/1). The sanctioned Scheme envisaged inter alia: - (i) Merger of erst while M/s. Rajshree Plastiwood Limited with the present petitioner; and (ii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 21.04.2003 already issued by GOMP for this purpose, the GOMP / Sales Tax Department of GOMP would not levy the taxes on the company's suppliers in respect of goods purchased up to 31.03.2006, when they produce declaration given by the company to them. As the VAT has been introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2006, the GOMP / Sales Tax Department of GOMP would also exempt the company from VAT in terms of MP VAT Act, 2002 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for a total period of nine (9) years or to the extent of un-utilized amount of gross quantum of sales tax and purchase tax, whichever occurs earlier, by way of issuance of a fresh notification with respect to exemption of applicability of tax on purchases as well as on sales of the unit. (b) As already directed by the Bench in its last hearing held on 05.11.2007, the DGFT / Customs Authority would also waive interest / penalty on the principal outstanding amount of customs duty, especially as the company is reported to have already paid the principal outstanding amount of customs duty." 6. As per the direction of the BIFR in terms of para 4.7 (2) and 4.7 (3) of the Sanctioned Scheme, the Commercial Tax Department of Government of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-I or who undertakes expansion in [...] existing industrial unit. (iii) Dealer who establishes a [...] new industrial unit on land within five kilometres of the boundary of a growth centre due to nonavailability of land in the growth centre or who undertakes expansion in [...] existing industrial unit. For a unit established in a growth centre located in a District specified in, - (i) Part 1 of Annex.I-125%, & (ii) In Part-II of Annexure I - Category A - 150% Category B - 200% Category C - 250% Of the capital investment in fixed assets in the new industrial unit or in the expanded capacity of the existing industrial unit, as the case may be, 200% of the capital investment in fixed assets in the new industrial unit or in the expanded capacity of the existing industrial unit, as the case may be .. For a unit established in a District specified in, - (i) Part 1 of Annex.I-125%, & (ii)Part-II of Annexure I - Category A - 150% Category B - 200% Category C - 250% Of the capital investment in fixed assets in the new industrial unit or in the expanded capacity of the existing industrial unit, as the case may be. 5 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 6 years 4 years 6 years 7 years 8 years ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew that relief which the appellant company was not entitled for since beginning or at the time of sanction of the scheme in 1996, cannot be granted against the established State Policy as per notification dated 06.10.1994. We have already held that 'notification' dated 06.10.1986 is not applicable on the appellant company for the reasons already discussed and as per notification dated 06.10.1994, the appellant company is not entitled for the concessions beyond a monetary limit of Rs. 4.10 crores. 20. On the basis of discussion made above, we are of the view that Appeal No.77/2011 filed by the company M/s. Saurabh Metals Privat Limited is completely devoid of merits and is accordingly liable to be dismissed while the Appeal No.139/2011 filed on behalf of Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Madhya Pradesh is liable to be allowed in the light of provisions of para 5 of notification dated 06.10.1994. 21. Appeal No.77/2011 filed by the company is accordingly dismissed while Appeal No.139/2011 filed by the Commercial Tax Department is allowed observations as made in para 26 (g) stand deleted." 8. From perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the AAIFR, it is cle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Scheme. He further submitted that letter dated 04.08.2007 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Madhya Pradesh to discontinue benefit of exemption under CST is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and is also contrary to the provisions of SICA; and prayed that the demands raised under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the periods 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11 be quashed. 14. Per contra, Shri H.Y. Mehta, learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh has submitted that as per Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003, came into force with effect from 01.12.2016 (Annexure P/14). The petitioner - company whose proceedings abated due to coming into force of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003, may make reference under Part VA of the Companies Act, 1956. He further submitted that Part V-A of the Companies Act, 1956 provides for revival and rehabilitation of sick industrial company. He has also drawn our attention to Section 2 (49-A) of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that the definition of 'Tribunal' means the National Company Law Tribunal construed under Sub Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd abated and interim order passed in favour of the petitioner stands automatically vacated by operation of law. 17. Special Leave Petition against order dated 20.04.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.1318/2008 by a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in the case of Commissioner, Commercial Tax, MP v. Saurabh Metals Private Limited reported in [2009] 24 VST 520 (MP) was filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh before the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 11.09.2009 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.22009/2009 issued the following directions: - "It is the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh that it was not heard by BIFR when it formulated the Scheme of Revival under which tax exemption is given to the respondent herein even when there is no Rolling Mill. This position has been controverted. We make it clear that if so advised the State of Madhya Pradesh may move the BIFR and establish its rights to levy the tax and oppose the exemption in accordance with law. On this BIFR may give reasons while disposing of the Application of the State of Madhya Pradesh after hearing the assessee." 18. In pursuance of the direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, we have perused the impugned order. In the impugned order, presence of any Counsel or representative of Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh has not been marked which shows that nobody was present on behalf of the appellant Department when the BIFR was considering the letter dated 4.8.07 filed by the appellant before the BIFR. In para 9 of the impugned order, the BIFR has clearly mentioned that it has considered the submissions made by the concerned agencies 'present in today's hearing' which shows that the order has been passed by the BIFR on the basis of the submissions made by the parties present in the hearing held on 5.11.07. As no notice was issued to the appellant, no one appeared for the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department on that day and consequently no submissions could be made by the appellant before the BIFR. From para 9 of the impugned order, it is apparent that at the time of declaring and discharging the company from the purview of SICA, the appellant Department was neither heard nor their objections considered. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order is an ex parte order, passed without issuing any notice ....