9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Company engaged in manufacture of yarn. It is also registered as a dealer under the M.P. Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 1994 Act for short); Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 1956 Act for short); and MP Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 ( Entry Tax Act for short). For the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, petitioner No. 1 s turnover was assessed to tax under 1956 Act and Entry Tax Act and demand was raised. For the assessment year 1996-97, tax was assessed and demand was raised under 1994 Act. State Government came out with a settlement scheme to clear off the arrears of taxes. The Scheme is known as ^^e ; izns'k cdk;k jkf'k ljy lek/ku ;kstuk] 2001**- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, a writ in nature of certiorari is claimed to quash attachment order of Santro Car vide Ann. P-6; sale proclamation Ann. P-7; Statutory Notices Annexure P-8; show cause against proposed cancellation of registration Ann. P-9 and rejection of applications on 4-4-2002 for settlement under the scheme which have been collectively marked as Annexure P-13. 3. It is contended by Shri Vijay Asudani, learned counsel for petitioners that so far as rejection of applications for settlement under scheme vide order dated 4-4-2002 Ann. P-13 is concerned, deposit of amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice is not mandatory and deposit could be made at any time. Since petitioner No. 1 deposited the requisite amount applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reof is concerned, no sooner it was established that the car does not belong to petitioner No. 1, the car was released on 12-4-2002 and attachment proceedings have been withdrawn. As regards plea of protection under section 22 of the 1985 Act is concerned, learned counsel submitted that amount covered by the RRC Ann. P-6 was issued long after petitioner No. 1 was declared sick by the BIFR on 10-4-1990. No provision was made for payment of tax dues pertaining to subsequent years in the rehabilitation scheme initially sanctioned by the BIFR on 7-4-1993. As such, protection of section 22 of 1985 Act is not available to the petitioner No. 1. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dy. CTO v. Corromandal Pharm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 must adhere to time-limit provided in the scheme. I find force in the contentions urged by learned Government Advocate. Scheme envisaged submission of applications for settlement up to 31-1-2002. Settlement was permissible of arrears of tax or penalty due on 1-4-2001 under the 1994 Act; 1956 Act or Entry Tax Act relating assessment proceeding completed by 31-3-1997. For the implementation of scheme, State Government also framed rules known as ^^e ; izns'k cdk;k jkf'k ljy lek/ku ;kstuk fu;e] 2001**- Rule 5 thereof contemplated that competent authority would assess the settlement amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of application and communicate the same in Form No. 2 and upon receipt of Form No. 2, the settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the 2001 Scheme on account of non-deposit of the required amount, within prescribed time-limit. In view of aforesaid discussion no interference is warranted with Annexure P-13. Contention No. II 7. The second contention that no tax could be assessed as has been done vide Annexure P-8 in view of section 22 of 1985 Act or section 446 of the Companies Act, learned counsel placed strong reliance on the Federal Court decision in the matter of Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra ) and India Fisheries (P.) Ltd. ( supra ). In fact in S.V. Kondaskar s case ( supra ), Supreme Court considered section 446 of the Companies Act in the context of initiation of reassessment proceedings by the Income-tax Officer under section 147 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference vide order dated 22-9-2002 and thereafter, learned Company Judge has already initiated the winding up proceedings. Once the BIFR rejected the reference, section 22 of 1985 Act will cease to play any role and the protection provided thereunder would not be available. Learned counsel for petitioners could not point out the fate of the appeal preferred against the order of BIFR. Nor any order of the appellate authority was placed on the record. Learned Company Judge is already seized of the matter and Official Liquidator has been appointed. However, learned Company Judge has stayed the further proceeding in the Company Petition in order to enable the petitioner to obtain Stay from AIFR. Since the winding-up proceedings have been sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
