9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serve to be considered at all. It is also to be noted that, the question whether the claim for exemption as sought for could be granted, had come up for consideration before this court earlier and as per the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this court reported in Prima Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2005 (8) TMI 650 - KERALA HIGH COURT] the same stands answered against the persons like the petitioner. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. - W.P. (C) No. 5226 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2012 - RAMACHANDRA MENON P.R., J. For the Appellant : E.K. Nandakumar, A.K. Jayasankar Nambiar, P. Benny Thomas, P. Gopinath and Raja Kannan For the Respondents : T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Assistant Solicitor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent of ₹ 209.2 lakhs was remaining unutilised for some or other reasons. Meanwhile, in view of various adverse circumstances, the company became sick and it was referred to fifth respondent/BIFR for revival. 3. After considering the facts and circumstances, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction issued exhibit P3 scheme, for re-habilitation, whereby a provision was incorporated under paragraph 13.8(a) causing extension of sales tax exemption (KGST) and concessional CST till March 31, 2006 without any ceiling. It is stated that the said scheme did not work out for some or other reason, as a result of which, a fresh Scheme as borne by exhibit P6 was promulgated on July 24, 2001. There also, a similar provision was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ored by the company. (iii) The 'Special Director' appointed by the BIFR on the company's 'Board of Directors' (BOD), if any, would stand discharged with immediate effect. (iv) The company would complete necessary formalities with the 'registrar of companies' (ROC), as may be required. 5. In the meanwhile, contending that the petitioner was entitled to have further extension of the benefits conferred as per exhibit P1; O.P No. 10157/2001 was filed before this court with the following prayers: (i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and grant extension of time to the petitioner for availing of the sales tax exemption granted under exhibit P1 up to March 31, 2006 as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and exhibit P9, also seeking for the benefit of exhibit P6 scheme formulated by the BIFR, contenting that the same is binding upon the Government. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 to 4, stating that the petitioner is not eligible to have any further extension of exemption and that the eligible extent of benefits in terms of the relevant SRO has already been provided to the petitioner. Paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, which is relevant in the context reads as follows: It is submitted that the BIFR has declared the unit of the petitioner as sick industrial company and the petitioner-company was preferred to BIFR in July 1996. The revival scheme was approved by BIFR on January 16, 1998. In the draft sch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification dated June 27, 2003. Again the Government of Kerala vide exhibit P9 letter informed the petitioner that the request for extension of exemption and concessional rate of CST without any ceiling till March 31, 2006 is not liable to be considered and rejected the said request. Therefore, the contrary contentions raised in the writ petition that binding order of the BIFR is not considered by the respondent is not correct. Since the petitioner is not entitled for tax exemption under the KGST Act and concessional rate of tax under the CST Act from September 1, 2000 onwards, the challenge against exhibits P11 to P16 notices is also not sustainable under law and is only liable to be rejected. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pursuing further steps to have the same challenged by resorting to appropriate remedy. In the above circumstance, this court finds that the present writ petition does not deserve to be considered at all. It is also to be noted that, the question whether the claim for exemption as sought for could be granted, had come up for consideration before this court earlier and as per the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this court reported in Prima Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2008] 11 VST 806 (Ker) [2005] 4 KLT 253, the same stands answered against the persons like the petitioner. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
