TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Three appeals arise from a common order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ applications which arose from the similar kind of orders passed by the Assessing Authorities under the Chhattisgarh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (for short, 'the Act, 1994'). 2. Since the Assessing Authority, in exercise of power under Section 26 (4) (a) of the Act, 1994 imposed interest on the Appellants for varied periods of assessment which in turn was upheld by the Appellate Authority, a challenge was thrown by filing a writ application primarily on the ground that delay in payment was for a valid justifiable ground as the industry in question was before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... included in the sanctioned scheme and not to amounts like sales tax etc. collected by the sick industrial company after the date of the sanctioned scheme and legitimately belonging to revenue. Paragraph 13 of the report states as under: - "13. On a fair reading of the provisions contained in Chapter III of Act 1 of 1986 and in particular Section 15 to 22, we are of the opinion that the plea put forward by the Revenue is reasonable and fair in all the circumstances of the case. Under the statute, the BIFR is to consider in what way various preventive or remedial measures should be afforded to a sick industrial company. In that behalf, BIFR is enabled to frame an appropriate scheme. To enable the BIFR to do so, cer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CA grants protection to the company and leaves it to the discretion of BIFR whether to permit filing and maintaining of suit or other proceedings. 13. The Supreme Court, further, in the matter of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Industry Facilitation Council and another (2006) 8 SCC 677, has held that once the awarded amount has been included in the scheme approved by the Board, Section 22 of the SIC Act would apply and observed as under in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19. 17. The said provision, thus, mandates that no proceeding inter alia for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company and no suit for recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security, shall lie or be proceeded wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 whereas, the liability is prior to that and it has not been demonstrated that any scheme has been sanctioned including waiving of such an amount of interest liability by the scheme approved by the BIFR and it has not been established that the said interest amount has been included in the scheme approved by the BIFR. Therefore, the petitioners' plea that merely because the petitioner industry has been declared as sick industry on 29-5-2002, ....