TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancial Reconstruction (BIFR), interest liability cannot be waived. Thereafter, the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal by its order held that on the basis of mere registration with the BIFR, interest liability cannot be waived and also held that statutory liability to pay interest must be expressly waived against which these writ petitions have been filed. 3. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that tax liability has already been discharged by the petitioners and the petitioners have sufficient cause, as the matter has been registered later-on with the BIFR on 29-5-2002 and in view of Section 22 (1) of the Act of 1994, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Tata Davy Ltd. v. State of Orissa and others ((1997) 6 SCC 669) and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v Union of India (2017 (345) E.L.T. 27 (All.)). 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the writ petitions and would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Voltas Ltd. v. State of A.P.( ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to be suspended. The nature of the proceedings which are automatically suspended are winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the sick industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver. The proceedings in respect of these matters can further be continued against the sick industrial company with the consent or with the approval of the Board or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be. 10. In the matter of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI CINOD Secretariat, Madras ((1992) 3 SCC 1), the Supreme Court has held the conditions precedent for applicability of Section 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 which state as under: - "9. A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that it is applicable, in respect of an industrial company, where (i) an inquiry under Section 16 is pending; or (ii) a scheme referred to in Section 17 is under preparation or consideration; or (iii) a sanctioned scheme is under implementation; or (iv) where an appeal under Section 25 relating to the industrial company is pending. ..." 11. In the matter of De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not be pursued which will cause delay or impediment in the implementation of the sanctioned scheme. In order to safeguard such state of affairs, an embargo or bar is placed under Section 22 of the Act against any step for execution, distress or the like or other similar proceedings against the company without the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the appellate authority. 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 stated, 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 bar or embargo envisaged in Section 22(1) of the Act can apply only to such of those dues reckoned or included in the sanctioned scheme. Such amounts like sales tax, etc., which t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the 1996 Act, indisputably is being executed before a civil court. Execution of an award, beyond any cavil of doubt, would attract the provisions of Section 22 of the 1985 Act. Whereas an adjudicatory process of making an award under the 1993 Act may not come within the purview of the 1985 Act but once an award made is sought to be executed, it shall come into play. Once the awarded amount has been included in the scheme approved by the Board, in our opinion, Section 22 of the 1985 Act would apply. 19. If the liabilities of the appellant are covered by the scheme framed under Section 22 of the 1985 Act, the High Court was clearly in error in coming to the conclusion that the provisions thereof are not attracted only because the debt had been incurred after the Company was declared to be a sick one." 14. Similar proposition has been laid down by this Court in the matter of M/s. I.C.S.A. (India Limited), Hyderabad v. M/s. Swastik Wires (AIR 2017 Chhattisgarh 70). 15. In light of the principles laid down in the above-cited cases, if the facts of the case in hand are examined, it is quite vivid that the petitioner industry has been registered with the BIFR on 29-5- 2002 wherea....