9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a sick company within the meaning of Act of 1985. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR ) appointed the Industrial and Financial Corporation of India as the operating agency (O.A.) to formulate a scheme for revival of the company. As no scheme was forthcoming, applicant No. 2 submitted a scheme, which was accepted and approved by BIFR in or about February, 1991. However, applicant No. 2 was allowed to reopen the jute mill on January 16, 1991 after thorough renovation, overhaul and capital outlay with an investment of rupees one crore. But the financial institutions failed or neglected to provide finance as per the sanctioned scheme. Hence, the directors of applicant No. 1 faced financial difficulties. The order dated March 17, 1993 of BIFR will show that the sanctioned scheme could not be implemented for failure of the Bank of India and other financial institutions to release funds or credit facilities. In the meantime, a section of workers started taking various disruptive steps, as a result of which production at the mill remained suspended for the period from November, 1993 to September, 1994. The mill could be reopened on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company after completion of necessary formalities. He also requested the Additional Commissioner to keep in abeyance the proceedings initiated against the company, if possible. That letter dated July 8, 1992 is annexure G1 . In or about December, 1992 applicants received a letter dated December 1, 1992, annexure H , from State Government wanting to know particulars of financial assistance, if any, released by financial institutions/banks under the BIFR scheme. Meanwhile, appeals being Nos. A1002, 1003 and 1004 filed by the applicants before the Assistant Commissioner relating to the ex parte orders of assessment of interest were dismissed on June 23, 1993 on the ground that the applicants did not pay the admitted amount of interest. Then applicants preferred three revision cases before the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal (since re-designated as West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board). Those revision cases are still pending. The appeals preferred against assessment of tax are also pending. Respondent No. 4, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was informed of the fact that applicant No. 1 is a sick company and as per the scheme sanctioned by BIFR under Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to forthwith rescind the said certificate case and the said notice. A prohibitory order in the same term is also prayed for. 5.. The subject-matter of this application is certificate case No. 9 ST/ AW/96-97 relating to realisation of assessed tax and interest under Act of 1941 in respect of the period of four quarters ending March 31, 1988 (see paragraph 29 of the application). There is also a prayer for an order of restraint relating to realisation of tax and interest under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 though no certificate proceeding has yet been initiated therefor [see prayer (d)]. It may be observed at this stage that this Tribunal exercises the jurisdiction as a substitute of the High Court in relation to matters falling under Act of 1941 and the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954; but it does not exercise jurisdiction in relation to assessment of tax or interest on such tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 6.. The only contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the certificate case could not be initiated and the order dated November 28, 1996 could not be validly issued on UCO Bank prohibiting operation of the bank account in view of the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its order at annexure A , had lapsed and fallen through and was not in existence on March 17, 1993. For that reason, BIFR had to give a direction for submission of a revised scheme for rehabilitation by March 31, 1993. It is nobody s case that any revised scheme was submitted after March 17, 1993. 9.. Mr. Bhaskar Sen, learned counsel for applicants, submitted that the scheme which was approved by BIFR by annexure A was in operation and hence section 22 of Act of 1985 is attracted to the instant case. That being so, the certificate case and the consequential order on the bank could not be validly initiated or issued. Mr. K.K. Saha, learned counsel for respondents, on the contrary, submitted that it is clear from annexure B (order of BIFR dated March 17, 1993) and the averments in the present application that the scheme which was approved by BIFR had failed and had not been implemented. Therefore, according to him, the position was that as on March 17, 1993 and thereafter there was no approved scheme in operation regarding rehabilitation of the company. Mr. Sen, counsel for applicants, submitted that section 22(1) will be attracted because in this case a sanctioned scheme is u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
